Archive for the ‘Theodoret’ Category

Henry Newcome on Ignatius and Transubstantiation

May 18, 2017

Henry Newcome, in 1705, tackled the question of Ignatius and Transubstantiation, in response to a Roman Catholic priest identified as T.B.:

He begins with Ignatius, concerning some Heretics, (Ignatius’ Epistle to the Smyrneans) that received not Eucharist or Oblations, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ. (T. B. Section 1)

The Heretics he means, were the Followers of Simon and Menander, who denied the reality of Christ’s Flesh, and for that Reason admitted not the Eucharist. And what is this to Transubstantiation, that some Heretics, because they did not believe that Christ was really Incarnate, would not admit the Eucharist, the Symbols whereof represented and supposed a real Incarnation? Heresy is prolific of Heresy, and their Disbelief of the Incarnation made them reject the Eucharist, lest they would be forced to confess the Flesh of Christ. For if they allowed the Symbols of a true Body, they would be obliged to grant a true Body, since a mere Phantom can have no Sign or Symbol. Thus your Cardinal Bellarmine answers for us (Bellarmine On the Eucharist, book 1, chapter 1, p. 400), Lest the Calvinists (says he) should Glory of the Antiquity of their Opinion, it is to be observed, that those ancient Heretics did not so much oppose the Eucharist as the Mystery of the Incarnation. For therefore (as Ignatius shows in the same place) they denied the Eucharist to be the Flesh of the Lord, because they denied the Lord to have Flesh. If then in the Judgment of your Cardinal these Heretics were no Calvinists, Ignatius in condemning them, neither condemns Calvinists, nor countenances Transubstantiators: What we teach, that the Elements are Sacramental Signs of Christ’s Body, is as inconsistent with the Sentiments of those Heretics as Transubstantiation, since such Figures of a Body (as Tertullian argues against the Marcionites) prove the Reality of Christ’s Flesh, and that it was no Phantom, which can have no Figure. I may add, That Theodoret, out of whose third Dialogue this Passage of Ignatius is restored (which was not to be found in former Editions of Ignatius) hath plainly declared against the Eutychians (as I have formerly observed) that the Symbols after Consecration recede not from their own Nature, but remain in their former Substance. And he must have a very mean Opinion of Theodoret’s Judgment, who can think he imagined this Passage of Ignatius inconsistent with his own Opinion; which would have been to have helped the Heretics instead of confuting them. To conclude, examine this Testimony by the latter part of my fifth Rule, and show us where Ignatius says a Word of the changing of the Substance of the Bread into the Substance of Christ’s Body: Which is the Doctrine of the Trent Council, and what T. B. was to prove.

(Part 1, “An Answer to Some Testimonies produced by T. B. from the Fathers of the Six First Centuries, for Transubstantiation,” pp. 49-50 – spellings modernized)

Theodoret’s Dialogue 3 “The Impasible” (mentioned by Bellarmine)

I should caution that I believe Bellarmine may, on some other occasion, have attempted to use Ignatius against a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. In any event, however, Bellarmine (as alleged by Newcome) is correct in stating that the objection of the heretics to the Eucharist was a denial of Christ’s true humanity – not a denial of a change of the elements.


Imputation Attested in the Early, Medieval, and even Counter-Reformation Era

November 20, 2012

Pastor David King was of great help in providing the following example of an early church Father, a medieval Father, a Doctor of the Church (according to Rome), and a cardinal of the Roman church, all affirming imputation in some form or other.

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153): The fragrance of your wisdom comes to us in what we hear, for if anyone needs wisdom let him ask of you and you will give it to him. It is well known that you give to all freely and ungrudgingly. As for your justice, so great is the fragrance it diffuses that you are called not only just but even justice itself, the justice that makes men just. Your power to make men just is measured by your generosity in forgiving. Therefore the man who through sorrow for sin hungers and thirsts for justice, let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just man, and, judged righteous in terms of faith alone, he will have peace with God. See Kilian Walsh, O.C.S.O., Bernard of Clairvaux On the Song of Songs II (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, Inc.,1983), Sermon 22.8, p. 20.
Latin text: Porro sapientiae tuae odorem ex eo percipimus quod audivimus quia si quis indiget sapientia, postulet eam a te, et dabis ei. Aiunt siquidem quod des omnibus affluenter, et non improperes. At vero justitiae tuae tanta ubique fragrantia spargitur, ut non solum justus, sed etiam ipsa dicaris justitia, et justitia justificans. Tam validus denique es ad justificandum, quam multus ad ignoscendum. Quamobrem quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit et sitit justitiam, credat in te qui justificas impium, et solam justificatus per fidem, pacem habebit ad Deum. Sermones in Cantica, Sermo XXII, §8, PL 183:881D.

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153): Man therefore was lawfully delivered up, but mercifully set free. Yet mercy was shown in such a way that a kind of justice was not lacking even in his liberation, since, as was most fitting for man s recovery, it was part of the mercy of the liberator to employ justice rather than power against man s enemy. For what could man, the slave of sin, fast bound by the devil, do of him self to recover that righteousness which he had formerly lost? Therefore he who lacked righteousness had another’s imputed to him, and in this way: The prince of this world came and found nothing in the Saviour, and because he notwithstanding laid hands on the Innocent he lost most justly those whom he held captive; since He who owed nothing to death, lawfully freed him who was subject to it, both from the debt of death, and the dominion of the devil, by accepting the injustice of death; for with what justice could that be exacted from man a second time? It was man who owed the debt, it was man who paid it. For if one, says S. Paul, died for all, then were all dead (2 Cor. v. 14), so that, as One bore the sins of all, the satisfaction of One is imputed to all. It is not that one forfeited, another satisfied; the Head and body is one, viz., Christ. The Head, therefore, satisfied for the members, Christ for His children, since, according to the Gospel of Paul, by which Peter’s [i.e., Abelard] falsehood is refuted, He who died for us, quickened us together with Himself, forgiving us all our trespasses, blotting out the hand writing of ordinances that was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross, having spoiled principalities and powers (Col. ii. 13, 14). Dom. John Mabillon, ed., Life and Works of Saint Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, trans. Samuel J. Eales, Vol. II, Letter CXC – Against Certain Heads of Abaelard’s Heresies, 6.15 (London: Burns and Oates Limited, 1889), pp. 580-581. Cf. Epistola CXC, ad Innocentum II, Pontificem, Tractatus de erroribus Petri Abaelardi, Caput VI, §15, PL 182:1065B-D.

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): And in this way, it were not absurd, if any one should say that the righteousness and merits of Christ are imputed unto us, when they are given and applied unto us, as if we ourselves had satisfied God. For translation, see The Works of John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, General Considerations, ed. William H. Goold, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, Third printing, 1977), vol. V, p. 56.
Latin text: Et hoc modo non esset absurdum, si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi justitiam et merita; cum nobis donentur et applicentur; ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus. Roberti Bellarmini, Opera Omnia, De Controversiis, Tomus Quartus, Pars Prima, De Justificatione (Neapoli: Apud Josephum Giuliano, 1858), Liber II, Caput 10, p. 523.

Bellarmine cannot deny this when he says that Christ can rightly be said to be made righteousness meritoriously “because he satisfied the Father for us, and gives and communicates that satisfaction to us, when he justifies us, so that he can be called our sanctification and righteousness, as if we ourselves had satisfied God” (“De Justificatione,” 2.10 Opera [1858], 4:523). This he confirms on 2 Cor. 5:21: “The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us as to the satisfaction, which he made for us” (ibid., p. 524). Nor can that which our opponent adds in the same place help his cause when he says: “But not on this account can we be reckoned righteous, if the stains and corruption of sins truly inhere in us” (ibid.). For if the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us (as he had already confessed), then certainly we are considered righteous in him; for no one imputes righteousness to him whom he does not count righteous. And if the satisfaction of Christ is imputed to us, then our debts for which he satisfied are not imputed [to us], but are remitted. Falsely also he holds “that the righteousness inhering in us is here called the righteousness of God because it is given to us of God; or also because it is the image and effect of the righteousness of God” (ibid.). For the little clause “in him” stands in the way; for how could it be said to be in Christ, if it was in us? [Cardinal] Contarini acknowledges this: “The righteousness of God in him, since his righteousness is made ours, is given and imputed to us” (cf. “De Justificatione,” Casparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera [1571], p. 592). 

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 652-53, Sixteenth Topic, Third Question, Section XVII, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994)

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Psalm 22:1: Let it [i.e., the LXX] therefore heed John’s loud cry, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” and the divinely inspired Paul’s words, “For us he made him to be sin who did not know sin so that we might become righteousness through him,” and again, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us.” So just as the one who was a fount of righteousness assumed our sin, and the one who was an ocean of blessing accepted a curse lying upon us, and scorning shame endured a cross, so too he uttered the words on our behalf. After all, if he willingly submitted to chastisement prescribed for us—“Chastisement of our peace is upon him,” the inspired author says—much more is it the case that it was on our behalf that he employed these words in our person, crying out, The words of my failings are far from saving me: do not have regard to the faults of nature, he is saying, but grant salvation in view of my sufferings. Robert C. Hill, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 101, Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Psalms, 1-72 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2000), pp. 146-147.

Greek text: Ἀκουσάτωσαν τοίνυν Ἰωάννου τοῦ πάνυ βοῶντος· «Ἴδε ὁ Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου.» Τοῦ δὲ θεσπεσίου Παύλου λέγοντος·«Τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη ἐν αὐτῷ.» Καὶ πάλιν· «Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατά ρας τοῦνόμου, γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα.» Τοιγαροῦν ὥσπερ δικαιοσύνης ὑπάρχων πηγὴ, τὴν ἡμετέραν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνέλαβε, καὶ εὐλογίας ὢν πέλα γος, τὴν ἐπικειμένηνἡμῖν ἐδέξατο κατάραν, καὶ σταυρὸν ὑπέμεινεν αἰσχύνης καταφρονήσας· οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐποιήσατο λόγους. Εἰ γὰρ τὴν ὡρισμένην ὑμῖν παιδείαν ὑπῆλθενἑκών· «Παιδεία γὰρ εἰρήνης ἡμῶν ἐπʼ αὐτὸν,» ᾗ φησιν ὁ προφήτης· πολλῷ μᾶλλον τοῖς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀνθʼ ἡμῶν ἐχρήσατο λόγοις, καὶ βοᾷ «Μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆςσωτηρίας μου οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου.» Μὴ ἀποβλέψῃς, φησὶν, εἰς τὰ τῆς φύσεως πλημμελήματα· ἀλλὰ δὸς τὴν σωτηρίαν διὰ τὰ ἐμὰ παθήματα. Interpretatio in Psalmos, Psalmi XXI, v. 1, PG 80:1012.

Addendum, thanks to Bruce McCormack’s Justification in Perspective:

Ambrosiaster (fl. 4th century): This he says, that without the works of the law, to an impious person (that is, a Gentile) believing in Christ, his faith is imputed for righteousness, as it was to Abraham. How then can the Jews imagine that through the works of the law they are justified with Abraham’s justification, when they see that Abraham was justified not from the works of the law, but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law, since an impious person is justified with God through faith alone. Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, on Romans 4:5 (PL 17:86).

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225): In short, faith in one of two gods cannot possibly admit us to the dispensation of the other, so that it should impute righteousness to those who believe in him, and make the just live through him, and declare the Gentiles to be his children through faith. Such a dispensation as this belongs wholly to Him through whose appointment it was already made known by the call of this self-same Abraham, as is conclusively shown by the natural meaning. Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 5, Chapter 3 (see here).

Formal Sufficiency of Scripture: Fifth Century Fathers (Guest Series) (Bonus: Two Early Roman Bishops)

December 18, 2010
Formal Sufficiency of Scripture
Stated and Examined from Scripture and the Fathers, with scholarly confirmation regarding the Fathers’ views.

This series first defined the nature of formal sufficiency (i.e. the Reformed view) in an introduction section (link) and then demonstrated Scripture’s own testimony to its sufficiency (link). Although that discussion was enough, we have continued by showing that there is evidence (sometimes more clear, sometimes less clear) of the Reformed view throughout the writings of the fathers, starting from the earliest Christian writers (link), and then continuing with the fathers of the 3rd century (link) and fourth century (link). This section will be the final section on the fathers views, although of course our forerunners in the faith did not stop speaking of the sufficiency of Scripture in the fifth century.

We will start this section in Greece on the island of Salamis, with Epiphanius.

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403):

For God is come, and the divine Scriptures explain all things to us clearly; for there is nothing in them difficult or obscure.

Greek text: Ὁ θεὸς γὰρ ἦλθε, καὶ εἰς πάντα ἡμῖν σαφηνίζουσιν αἱ θεῖαι γραφαί. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐν αὐταῖς ἐστὶ σκολιὸν ἢ στραγγαλιῶδες.

Ancoratus, §41, PG 43:89; translation by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 253.

We might even say that Epiphanius is overselling things here, but if we limit what he says to the most important things – the things necessary for salvation – we can agree with what he is saying.

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403):

And lest it be thought that [there is] some error in the Gospels—for the mystery is awesome and beyond human telling, and only to the Holy Spirit’s children is the statement of it plain and clear.
Greek text: Καὶ ἵνα μή τις νομίσῃ ὅτι πλάνη τις ἐστὶν ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις• ἔκπληκτον γὰρ τὸ μυστήριον καὶ ἡ διήγησις ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον• μόνοις δὲ τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματός ἐστι πᾶσα λεία τε καὶ πεφωτισμένη.

Adversus Haereses, Liber II, Tom. I, LI, §11, PG 41:908B; Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 51. Against the sect which does not accept the Gospel according to John, and his Revelation, 11,2 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 36.

This statement is similar to his previous statement, but it recognizes the role of the Holy Spirit in making the sense of the gospels plain and clear.

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403):

And thus it is fully demonstrated that there is no obscurity or contradiction in the holy Gospels or between the evangelists, but that everything is plain. Greek text: Ὥστε ἐξ ἅπαντος (or ἐξάπαντος) δείκνυσθαι ὅτι οὐδεμία σκολιότης οὐδ’ ἐναντιότης ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις εὐαγγελίοις οὐδὲ παρὰ τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς εὑρίσκεται, ἀλλὰ πάντα σαφῆ.

Adversus Haereses, Liber II, Tom. I, LI, §15, PG 41:917D; Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 51. Against the sect which does not accept the Gospel according to John, and his Revelation, 15,14 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 41.

This comment from Epiphanius seems to combine the first two. There are no contradictions – instead the gospels are plain.

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403):

Everything in the sacred scripture is clear, to those who will approach God’s word with pious reason, and not harbor the devil’s work within them and turn their steps to the pits of death—as this unfortunate man and his converts have attacked the truth more vigorously than any who have become blasphemers of God and his faith before them.

Greek text: Πάντα γὰρ σαφῆ ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ τοῖς βουλομένοις εὐσεβεῖ λογισμῷ προσέρχεσθαι τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ καὶ μὴ διαβολικὴν ἐνέργειαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἐγκισσήσαντας ἑαυτοὺς καταστρέφειν εἰς τὰ βάραθρα τοῦ θανάτου, ὡς οὗτος ὁ ἐλεεινὸς καὶ οἱ αὐτῷ πεισθέντες ἄνθρωποι κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐστρατεύσαντο ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς πρὸ αὐτῶν γεγονότας βλασφήμους εἰς θεὸν καὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ πίστιν.

Adversus Haereses, Liber III, Tom. I, LXXVI, §7, PG 42:528C; Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 76. Against Anomoeans, 7,7 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 504.

The preceding quotation emphasizes the source of confusion about Scripture: human error and a corrupt heart. It is not that the Scriptures are not clear, but that people do not wish to understand them.

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403):

And everything in the sacred scripture and the holy faith is crystal clear to us, and nothing is tortuous, contradictory or knotty.

Greek text: Καὶ πάντα ἡμῖν φωτεινὰ τὰ τῆς θείας Γραφῆς καὶ τὰ τῆς ἁγίας πίστεως, καὶ οὐδὲν σκολιὸν ἢ ἐναντίον ἢ στραγγαλιῶδες.

Adversus Haereses, Liber III, Tom. I, LXXVI, §45, PG 42:612-613; Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) Section VI, 76. Against Anomoeans – 45,7 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 552.

From Salamis in Greece, we can head East to Constantinople, where we find one of the most esteemed ancient preachers affirming the same thing Epiphanius has just told us about, but with even greater eloquence.

John Chrysostom tells us that had God not exercised “great considerateness” in giving us the Scripture and the direction it offers in interpreting itself, we would not be able to grasp what it says.

Chrysostom (349-407):

What is the meaning of that verse, “On the seventh day he rested from all the works he had done”? Notice how Sacred Scripture narrates everything in human fashion even out of considerateness to us. I mean, it would not have been possible for us in any other way to understand anything of what was said had not such considerateness been thought fitting.

FC, Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, Homily 10.16 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), p. 138.

This concept of accommodating human weakness is a concept that shows the formal sufficiency of Scripture, since it shows that Scripture is in the form necessary for us to understand what Scripture is saying.

Chrysostom (349-407):

Anyhow, in case by wanting to make a display of these people’s stupidity we, too, find ourselves induced to utter unseemly remarks, let’s have done with their folly and turn aside from such idiocy; let us follow the direction of Sacred Scripture in the interpretation it gives of itself, provided we don’t get completely absorbed with the concreteness of the words, but realize that our limitations are the reason for the concreteness of the language. Human senses, you see, would never be able to grasp what is said if they had not the benefit of such great considerateness.

FC, Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, Homily 13.8 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), p. 172.

Notice that in the preceding quotation Chrysostom is affirming not only Scripture condescension to us, but also the fact that Scripture is its own interpreter. It’s both barrels of the formal sufficiency shotgun.

Chrysostom (349-407):

See the extent of the considerateness Sacred Scripture employs here too, describing everything in a human manner: it is not that there are sluice gates in heaven, but rather that it describes everything in terms customary with us, as if to say that the Lord simply gave a direction and immediately the waters obeyed their Creator’s command, fell out of the heavens on all sides and inundated the whole world.

FC, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, Homily 25.10 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), pp. 131-132.

This is similar to the previous examples, in that Chrysostom is pointing out that the language of Scripture is adapted to people, so that they may readily understand it.

Chrysostom (349-407):

See the marvellous considerateness of the expressions of Sacred Scripture: “God went up away from him.” It says, not for us to think that divinity is limited by place, but for us to learn from this as well his ineffable love, in that the grace of the Spirit recounts everything in this manner, by showing considerateness for our human limitations. You see, the notion of going up and going down is not appropriate to God, but, since it is a particular mark of his ineffable love to apply the concreteness of such words for the sake of our instruction, accordingly Scripture employs human expressions for the reason that in no other fashion could human hearing accommodate itself to the sublimity of the message had it spoken to us in a manner befitting the Lord’s dignity.

FC, Vol. 87, Homilies on Genesis 46-67, Homily 60.6 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992), p. 179.

This preceding quotation is much like the others, and consequently just serves to show that Chrysostom made a theme of the matter.

Chrysostom made repeated use of the word precision (akribeia, ἀκρίβεια) in connection with Holy Scripture. One of Chrysostom’s favorite phrases was “the precision of Sacred Scripture.” For Chrysostom, precision is a distinctive feature of the biblical text. See, for example, FC, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 18.3, 9, 20; 20.5; 21.8, 11; 22.5, 6; 23.4, 8; 24.5; 25.10, 20; 26.15; 27.16, 17, 23; 29.22; 30.4; 31.18; 33.4; 35.4, 8, 9; 36.12; 38.6; 39.11; 43.3 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), in which we find this phrase or its equivalent some 28 times: pp. 4, 9, 15, 38, 56, 59, 71, 90, 93, 107, 131, 139, 155, 173, 174, 179, 213, 222, 249, 278, 306, 309, 310, 334, 359, 381-382, 437; See also Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, Homily 7.9-10, 13.5, 13, 15.11 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), pp. 96, 171, 175, 200; FC, Vol. 87, Homilies on Genesis 46-67, Homilies 49.3, 55..5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992), pp. 43, 109; and Robert Charles Hill, St. John Chrysostom Commentary on the Psalms (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998), Vol. 1, pp. 80, 132, 158, 282, 304-305, 343, e.g., “See the wisdom of the inspired author, who speaks of everything with precision,” and “Note the inspired author’s precision.” In short, this principle of ἀκρίβεια is a feature of Holy Scripture to which Chrysostom repeatedly alludes and uses throughout his writings to describe the sacred text.

Chrysostom (349-407):

You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and farfetched philosophy, even to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text, and thinking that what is said on the question of things on earth has to do with things in heaven. And, if blessed Moses had not used such simplicity of expression and considerateness, the Holy Spirit directing his tongue, where would we not have come to grief? Sacred Scripture, though, whenever it wants to teach us something like this, gives its own interpretation, and doesn’t let the listener go astray. On the other hand, since the majority of listeners apply their ears to the narrative, not for the sake of gaining some profit but for enjoyment, they are at pains to take note of things able to bring enjoyment rather than those that bring profit. So, I beg you, block your ears against all distractions of that kind, and let us follow the norm of Sacred Scripture.

Greek text: Εἰ γὰρ καὶ τοσαύτῇ χρσαμένης ἀκριβείᾳ τῆς θείας Γραφῆς, οὐ παρῃτήσαντό τινες τῶν ἐπὶ εὐγλωττίᾳ μεγαλοφρονούντων, καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ τῇ ἔξωθεν, ἀπεναντίας τοῖς γεγραμμένοις φθέγγεσθαι, καὶ εἰπεῖν, μὴ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἶναι τὸν παράδεισον, καὶ πολλὰ ἕτερα τῶν εἰρημένων παρεγγυῶντες, μὴ ὡς γέγραπται φρονεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἀπεναντίας ἔρχεσθαι, καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἰρημένα περὶ τῶν ἐν οὐρανοῖς νομίζειν εἰρῆσθαι• εἰ μὴ τῇ ταπεινότητι τούτων τῶν λόγων, καὶ τῇ συγκαταβάσει ὁ μακάριος Μωϋσῆς ἐχρήσατο, τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τὴν γλῶτταν αὐτοῦ κινοῦντος, ποῦ οὐκ ἂν ἐξεκυλίσθησαν, καίτοι γε τῆς ἁγίας Γραφῆς, ἐπειδὰν βούληταί τι τοιοῦτον ἡμᾶς διδάσκειν, ἑαυτὴν ἑρμηνευούσης, καὶ οὐκ ἀφιείσης πλανᾶσθαι τὸν ἀκροατήν; Ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ οἱ πολλοὶ οὐ διὰ τὸ καρπώσασθαί τι κέρδος ἐκ τῶν θείων Γραφῶν, ἀλλὰ τέρψεως ἕνεκεν τὰς ἀκοὰς ὑπέχουσι τοῖς τὰ παριστάμενα λέγοισι• διὰ τοῦτο οὐ τοῖς ὠφελοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τέρπειν μᾶλλον δυναμένοις προσέχειν σπουδάζουσι. Διὸ παρακαλῶ, πᾶσι τοῖς τοιούτοις τὰς ἀκοὰς ἀποτειχίσαντες, τῷ κανόνι τῆς ἁγίας Γραφῆς κατακολουθήσωμεν.

Homiliae in Genesim, Caput II, Homilia XIII, §3, PG 53:108; FC, Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, Homily 13.13 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), p. 175.

The quotation above combines all the preceding themes. It mentions the precision of Scripture, it talks about its accommodation to the reader, it talks about its self-interpretative character, and it treats Scripture as teacher.

Chrysostom (349-407):

Consider, I ask you, dearly beloved, the precision of Sacred Scripture in narrating everything clearly to us, instructing us in the customs of the ancients and the extent of the ardor that marked their hospitality.

FC, Vol. 87, Homilies on Genesis 46-67, Homily 55.5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992), p. 109.

The preceding quotation combines precision, clarity, and the magisterial aspect of Scripture.

Moreover, Chrysostom encourages us not to wait for others to teach us, and that no man teaches us as they do.

Chrysostom (349-407):

Tarry not, I entreat, for another to teach thee; thou hast the oracles of God. No man teacheth thee as they; for he indeed oft grudgeth much for vainglory’s sake and envy. Hearken, I entreat you, all ye that are careful for this life, and procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament, the Apostolic Epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If grief befall thee, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take thence comfort of thy trouble, be it loss, or death, or bereavement of relations; or rather dive not into them merely, but take them wholly to thee; keep them in thy mind.

This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how ought we to come off safe? Well contented should we be if we can be safe with them, let alone without them.

NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, Homily 9.

There could hardly be a stronger affirmation of both the necessity and magisterial power of Scriptures in a single quotation.

Chrysostom also tells us that the necessary things in Scripture are all plain:

Chrysostom (349-407):

Tell me then, I beseech you, if now, when we are all present some one entered, having a golden girdle, and drawing himself up, and with an air of consequence said that he was sent by the king that is on the earth, and that he brought letters to the whole city concerning matters of importance; would you not then be all turned towards him? Would you not, without any command from a deacon, observe a profound silence? Truly I think so. For I have often heard letters from kings read here. Then if any one comes from a king, you all attend; and does a Prophet come from God, and speak from heaven, and no one attend? Or do you not believe that these things are messages from God? These are letters sent from God; therefore let us enter with becoming reverence into the Churches, and let us hearken with fear to the things here said.

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain (πάντα σαφῆ καὶ εὐθέα τὰ παρὰ ταῖς θείαις Γραφαῖς, πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δῆλα[PG 62:485]). But because ye are hearers for pleasure’s sake, for that reason also you seek these things. For tell me, with what pomp of words did Paul speak? and yet he converted the world. Or with what the unlettered Peter? But I know not, you say, the things that are contained in the Scriptures. Why? For are they spoken in Hebrew? Are they in Latin, or in foreign tongues? Are they not in Greek? But they are expressed obscurely, you say: What is it that is obscure? Tell me. Are there not histories? For (of course) you know the plain parts, in that you enquire about the obscure. There are numberless histories in the Scriptures. Tell me one of these. But you cannot. These things are an excuse, and mere words. Every day, you say, one hears the same things. Tell me, then, do you not hear the same things in the theaters? Do you not see the same things in the race-course? Are not all things the same? Is it not always the same sun that rises? Is it not the same food that we use? I should like to ask you, since you say that you every day hear the same things; tell me, from what Prophet was the passage that was read? from what Apostle, or what Epistle? But you cannot tell me—you seem to hear strange things. When therefore you wish to be slothful, you say that they are the same things. But when you are questioned, you are in the case of one who never heard them. If they are the same, you ought to know them. But you are ignorant of them.

NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, Homily III, Comments on 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 10.

Notice that in the preceding quotation, Chrysostom says that the necessary things in Scripture are all plain. This is essentially word for word the position that we take. Notice as well that Chrysostom specifically addresses the issue of the need for a preacher. It’s not an absolute, but a relative, necessity. It is necessary because the people are lazy, not because the Scriptures are not clear.

Moreover, Chrysostom tells us that the Evangelist John, in his gospel, taught doctrines that are clear and which “have been unfolded to all men throughout the world.”

Chrysostom (349-407):

For this reason too, he did not hide his teaching in mist and darkness, as they did who threw obscurity of speech, like a kind of veil, around the mischiefs laid up within. But this man’s doctrines are clearer than the sunbeams, wherefore they have been unfolded to all men throughout the world. For he did not teach as Pythagoras did, commanding those who came to him to be silent for five years, or to sit like senseless stones; neither did he invent fables defining the universe to consist of numbers; but casting away all this devilish trash and mischief, he diffused such simplicity through his words, that all he said was plain, not only to wise men, but also to women and youths. For he was persuaded that the words were true and profitable to all that should hearken to them. And all time after him is his witness; since he has drawn to him all the world, and has freed our life when we have listened to these words from all monstrous display of wisdom; wherefore we who hear them would prefer rather to give up our lives, than the doctrines by him delivered to.

NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, Homily 2.5.

Notice the comparison of the teachings of Scripture to light, as we previously discussed. The Scriptures are, indeed, an illumination to us.

Chrysostom (349-407):

Besides, even if any should be so poor, it is in their power, by means of the continual reading of the holy Scriptures which takes place here, to be ignorant of nothing contained in them.

NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, Homily 11.1.

Notice how Chrysostom affirms that the poor can, simply by diligently reading the Scriptures, come to a complete understanding of the Scriptures. This shows that the Scriptures are formally sufficient. If they were not, no amount of reading would lead one to a full knowledge of them.

In regard to the following discourse of Chrysostom, our theological opponents have claimed that Chrysostom spoke of the “material,” not the “formal” sufficiency of Holy Scripture. We contend that this is an expression that cannot be maintained in the face of the explicit language of Chrysostom, particularly since Chrysostom’s view of formal sufficiency is so clear in the preceding quotations.

Chrysostom (349-407):

2. Many other such things there are that beset our soul; and we have need of the divine remedies that we may heal wounds inflicted, and ward off those which, though not inflicted, would else be received in time to come—thus quenching afar off the darts of Satan, and shielding ourselves by the constant reading of the Divine Scriptures. It is not possible—I say, it is not possible, for any one to be secure without constant supplies of this spiritual instruction (translator’s note, “Or without constantly making use of spiritual reading”). Indeed, we may congratulate ourselves (i.e. one ought to be content), if, constantly using this remedy, we ever are able to attain salvation. But when, though each day receiving wounds, we make use of no remedies, what hope can there be of salvation?

Do you not notice that workmen in brass, or goldsmiths, or silversmiths, or those who engage in any art whatsoever, preserve carefully all the instruments of their art; and if hunger come, or poverty afflict them, they prefer to endure anything rather than sell for their maintenance any of the tools which they use. It is frequently the case that many thus choose rather to borrow money to maintain their house and family, than part with the least of the instruments of their art. This they do for the best reasons; for they know that when those are sold, all their skill is rendered of no avail, and the entire groundwork of their gain is gone. If those are left, they may be able, by persevering in the exercise of their skill, in time to pay off their debts; but if they, in the meantime, allow the tools to go to others, there is, for the future, no means by which they can contrive any alleviation of their poverty and hunger. We also ought to judge in the same way. As the instruments of their art are the hammer and anvil and pincers, so the instruments of our work are the apostolic and prophetic books, and all the inspired and profitable Scriptures. And as they, by their instruments, shape all the articles they take in hand, so also do we, by our instruments, arm our mind, and strengthen it when relaxed, and renew it when out of condition. Again, artists display their skill in beautiful forms, being unable to change the material of their productions, or to transmute silver into gold, but only to make their figures symmetrical. But it is not so with thee, for thou hast a power beyond theirs—receiving a vessel of wood, thou canst make it gold. And to this St. Paul testifies, speaking thus: “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and earth. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work,” (2 Tim. ii. 20, 21). Let us then not neglect the possession of the sacred books. For gold, whenever it becomes abundant, causes trouble to its possessors; but these books, when carefully preserved, afford great benefit to those who possess them. As also where royal arms are stored, though no one should use them, they afford great security to those who dwell there; since neither thieves nor burglars, nor any other evil-doers, dare attack that place. In the same way, where the inspired books are, from thence all satanical influence is banished, and the great consolation of right principles comes to those who live there; yea, even the very sight of these books by itself makes us slower to commit iniquity. Even if we attempt any forbidden thing, and make ourselves unclean, when we return home and see these books, our conscience accuses us more keenly, and we become less likely to fall again into the same sins. Again, if we have been stedfast in our integrity, we gain more benefit, (if we are acquainted with the word;) for as soon as one comes to the gospel, he by a mere look both rectifies his understanding and ceases from all worldly cares. And if careful reading also follows, the soul, as if initiated in sacred mysteries, is thus purified and made better, while holding converse with God through the Scriptures.

But what,” say they, “if we do not understand the things we read?” Even if you do not understand the contents, your sanctification in a high degree results from it. However, it is impossible that all these things should alike be misunderstood; for it was for this reason that the grace of the Holy Spirit ordained that tax-gatherers, and fishermen, and tent-makers, and shepherds, and goatherds, and uninstructed and illiterate men, should compose these books, that no untaught man should be able to make this pretext; in order that the things delivered should be easily comprehended by all—in order that the handicraftsman, the domestic, the widow, yea, the most unlearned of all men, should profit and be benefited by the reading. For it is not for vain-glory, as men of the world, but for the salvation of the hearers, that they composed these writings, who, from the beginning, were endued with the gift of the Holy Ghost.

3. For those without—philosophers, rhetoricians, and annalists, not striving for the common good, but having in view their own renown—if they said anything useful, even this they involved in their usual obscurity, as in a cloud. But the apostles and prophets always did the very opposite; they, as the common instructors of the world, made all that they delivered plain to all men, in order that every one, even unaided, might be able to learn by the mere reading. Thus also the prophet spake before, when he said, “All shall be taught of God,” (Isa. liv.13). “And they shall no more say, every one to his neighbor, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least to the greatest,” (Jer. xxxi. 34). St. Paul also says, “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech, or of wisdom, declaring unto you the mystery of God,” ( 1 Cor. ii. 1). And again, “My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” (1 Cor. ii. 4). And again, “We speak wisdom,” it is said, “but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world that come to nought,” (1 Cor. ii. 6). For to whom is not the gospel plain? Who is it that hears, “Blessed are the meek; blessed are the merciful; blessed are the pure in heart,” and such things as these, and needs a teacher in order to understand any of the things spoken?
But (it is asked) are the parts containing the signs and wonders and histories also clear and plain to every one? This is a pretence, and an excuse, and a mere cloak of idleness. You do not understand the contents of the book? But how can you ever understand, while you are not even willing to look carefully? Take the book in your hand. Read the whole history; and, retaining in your mind the easy parts, peruse frequently the doubtful and obscure parts; and if you are unable, by frequent reading, to understand what is said, go to some one wiser; betake yourself to a teacher; confer with him about the things said. Show great eagerness to learn; then, when God sees that you are using such diligence, He will not disregard your perseverance and carefulness; but if no human being can teach you that which you seek to know, He himself will reveal the whole.

Remember the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia. Being a man of a barbarous nation, occupied with numerous cares, and surrounded on all sides by manifold business, he was unable to understand that which he read. Still, however, as he was seated in the chariot, he was reading. If he showed such diligence on a journey, think how diligent he must have been at home; if while on the road he did not let an opportunity pass without reading, much more must this have been the case when seated in his house; if when he did not fully understand the things he read, he did not cease from reading, much more would he not cease when able to understand. To show that he did not understand the things which he read, hear that which Philip said to him: “Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts viii. 30). Hearing this question he did not show provocation or shame: but confessed his ignorance, and said: “How can I, except some man should guide me?” (ver. 31). Since therefore, while he had no man to guide him, he was thus reading; for this reason he quickly received an instructor. God knew his willingness, He acknowledged his zeal, and forthwith sent him a teacher.

But, you say, Philip is not present with us now. Still, the Spirit that moved Philip is present with us. Let us not, beloved, neglect our salvation! “All these things are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come,” (1 Cor. x. 11). The reading of the Scriptures is a great safeguard against sin; ignorance of the Scriptures is a great precipice and a deep gulf; to know nothing of the Scriptures, is a great betrayal of our salvation. This ignorance is the cause of heresies; this it is that leads to dissolute living; this it is that makes all things confused. It is impossible—I say, it is impossible, that any one should remain unbenefited who engages in persevering and intelligent reading. For see how much one parable has profited us! how much spiritual good it has done to us! For many I know have departed, bearing away abiding profit from the hearing; and if there be some who have not reaped so much benefit, still for that day on which they heard these things, they were rendered in every way better. And it is not a small thing to spend one day in sorrow on account of sin, and in consideration of the higher wisdom, and in affording the soul a little breathing time from worldly cares. If we can effect this at each assembly without intermission, the continued hearing would work for us a great and lasting benefit.

F. Allen, trans., Four Discourses of Chrysostom, Chiefly on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 3rd Sermon, §2-3 (London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1869), pp. 62-68. See Concionis VII, de Lazaro 3.2-3 PG 48:993-996 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857-87). Cf. PG 62:485.

It’s really hard to imagine a more Reformed-sounding discussion of the sufficiency of Scripture than the one provided above from Chrysostom. Even when he makes a comparison to goldsmiths, he does not refer to Scriptures as the gold to be worked over by external tools, but instead as the tools themselves! They are the tools of learning, the keys of knowledge by which the kingdom of heaven is opened unto men. They are what was given to the apostles and prophets to be passed on to us.

Chrysostom (349-407):

Having acquitted himself of all this, the good man “departed from Shekim,” the text says, and made haste towards Baithel. Now, observe once again, I ask you, God’s care for him and the way Scripture teaches us everything clearly.

FC, Vol. 87, Homilies on Genesis 46-67, Homily 59.18 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992), p. 175.

No additional comment is needed about the preceding quotation. But consider in the following, the magisterial metaphor that Chrysostom employs.

Chrysostom informs us that the Scriptures, as it were, took him by the hand and led him to Christ.

Chrysostom (349-407):

Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ.

FC, Vol. 68, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, Disc. 1.6.5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1979), pp. 23-24.

Is not that role of evangelizing the role of the teacher? If so, how can anyone deny that Chrysostom is affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture with respect to those things necessary for salvation.

Chrysostom (349-407):

Great is the profit of the divine Scriptures, and all-sufficient is the aid which comes from them. And Paul declared this when he said, “Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written aforetime for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4, and 1 Corinthians 10:11) For the divine oracles are a treasury of all manner of medicines, so that whether it be needful to quench pride, to lull desire to sleep, to tread under foot the love of money, to despise pain, to inspire confidence, to gain patience, from them one may find abundant resource. For what man of those who struggle with long poverty or who are nailed to a grievous disease, will not, when he reads the passage before us, receive much comfort?

NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, Homily 37.1.

Notice how the passage above specifically uses the term “sufficiency,” and then compares the Scriptures not to ingredients to be turned into medicines, but as a “treasure of all manner of medicines,” and then (lest someone insist that a pharmacist is needed) he explains that this medicine is delivered by a man reading the Scriptures. Could this metaphor be made any stronger? It is hard to imagine how!

Chrysostom (349-407):

Hence, I beseech you, let us practice the reading of the holy Scriptures with great zeal. This, after all, is the way to fortify our knowledge, too, if we are assiduous in applying ourselves to their contents. I mean, it is not possible for the person who is in touch with the divine message in a spirit of zeal and fervent desire ever to suffer neglect; rather, even should a human teacher not come our way, the Lord himself would come from on high to enlighten our minds, shed light on our thinking, bring to our attention what had slipped our notice, and act as our instructor in what we have no knowledge of—provided we are prepared to contribute what lies in our power. Scripture says, remember, “Do not call anyone on earth your teacher.” When therefore we take an inspired book in our hands, let us concentrate, collect our thoughts and dispel every worldly thought, and let us in this manner do our reading with great devotion, with great attention so that we may be able to be led by the Holy Spirit towards the understanding of the writings and may gain great benefit from them.

Διʼ ὃ, παρακαλῶ, μετὰ πολλῆς σπουδῆς τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν τῶν θείων Γραφῶν ποιώμεθα. Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἐπιτευξόμεθα, εἰ συνεχῶς ἐπίωμεν τὰ ἐγκείμενα. Οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστι τὸν μετὰ σπουδῆς καὶ πολλοῦ πόθου τοῖς θείοις ἐντυγχάνοντα λόγοις περιοφθῆναί ποτε· ἀλλὰ κἂν ἄνθρωπος ἡμῖν μὴ γένηται διδάσκαλος, αὐτὸς ὁ Δεσπότης ἄνωθεν ἐμβατεύων ταῖς καρδίαις ταῖς ἡμετέραις φωτίζει τὴν διάνοιαν, καταυγάζει τὸν λογισμὸν, ἐκκαλύπτει τὰ λανθάνοντα, διδάσκαλος ἡμῖν γίνεται τῶν ἀγνοουμένων· μόνον ἐὰν ἡμεῖς τὰ παρʼ ἑαυτῶν εἰσφέρειν βουλώμεθα. «Μὴ καλέσητε γὰρ, φησὶ, διδάσκαλον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς». Ἐπειδὰν οὖν λάβωμεν μετὰ χεῖρας βιβλίον πνευματικὸν, συντείναντες τὸν λογισμὸν, καὶ πᾶσαν βιωτικὴ, ἔννοιαν ἀπωσάμενοι, οὕτω τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν ποιώμεθα μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς εὐλαβείας, μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς προσοχῆς, ἵνα δυνηθῶμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὁδηγηθῆναι ἐπὶ τὴν κατανόησιν τῶν γεγραμμένων, καὶ πολλὴν ἐκεῖθεν τὴν ὠφέλειαν καρπώσασθαι.

In Genesin, Homilia XXXV, §1, PG 53:321-322; translation in FC, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, Homily 35.2 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), pp. 304-305.

In the quotation above, Chrysostom comes so close to “just me and my Bible” that he might even scare a Reformed reader! Yet Chrysostom does, with the Reformed, acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit in the individual’s reading of the Holy Scriptures.

More examples could be cited from Chrysostom, but we have already provided so many examples, that we should move on to another father. Thus, we move geographically south from where Chrysostom served in the northern portion of the middle east, to Palestine. But theologically, we’re moving west to Rome, where Jerome was educated, and with which he continued to identify, even despite his move.

Jerome (347-420):

Scripture speaks in terms of our human frailty that we may the more easily understand.

See FC, Vol. 57, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 2, Homily 65 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1966), p. 57.

The preceding quotation is an example of Jerome affirming that the form of Scripture is such that it accommodates the reader.

Jerome (347-420):

A: This passage to the ignorant, and to those who are unaccustomed to meditate on Holy Scripture, and who neither know nor use it, does appear at first sight to favor your opinion. But when you look into it, the difficulty soon disappears. And when you compare passages of Scripture with others, that the Holy Spirit may not seem to contradict Himself with changing place and time, according to what is written, “Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water spouts,” the truth will show itself, that is, that Christ did give a possible command when He said: “Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect,” and yet that the Apostles were not perfect.

NPNF2: Vol. VI, St. Jerome Against the Pelagians, Book I, §14.

This is not an explicit statement that Scripture interprets Scripture, but it surely implies that Jerome believed that. Jerome is basically saying that there may be some apparent difficulty with the text, but the solution is a more careful study of the Scripture, particularly of harmonization of Scripture with Scripture.

Jerome (347-420):

Some may say: ‘You are forcing the Scripture, that is not what it means.’ Let Holy Writ be its own interpreter . . .

FC, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms, Homily 6 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 45.

Now, in the preceding quotation, we have explicit what was implied in the previous quotation. Jerome believes that Scripture is Scripture’s interpreter. That’s one of the key features of a view of formal sufficiency of Scriptures.

Notice in the quote below how Jerome describes the nature of how our Lord has spoken in Holy Scripture so that “all may know,” something we’ve already seen in many of the prior fathers. This quote, to be sure, speaks of both the formal and material sufficiency of Holy Scripture. He distinguishes those present in the church from the evangelists and apostles, He says, “Note ‘who have been’ and not ‘who are.’ That is to make sure that, with the exception of the apostles, whatever else is said afterwards should be removed and not, later on, hold the force of authority.”

Jerome (347-420):

‘In his record of the peoples the Lord shall tell’: in the sacred writings, in His Scripture that is read to all peoples in order that all may know. Thus the apostles have written; thus the Lord Himself has spoken, not merely for a few, but that all might know and understand. Plato wrote books, but he did not write for all people but only for a few, for there are not many more than two or three men who know him. But the princes of the Church and the princes of Christ did not write only for the few, but for everyone without exception. ‘And princes’: the apostles and evangelists. ‘Of those who have been born in her.’ Note ‘who have been’ and not ‘who are.’ That is to make sure that, with the exception of the apostles, whatever else is said afterwards should be removed and not, later on, hold the force of authority. No matter how holy anyone may be after the time of the apostles, no matter how eloquent, he does not have authority, for ‘in his record of the peoples and princes the Lord shall tell of those who have been born in her.’

FC, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms, Homily 18 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), pp. 142-143.

The preceding quotation is particularly interesting because of the comment about authority. Jerome is placing the authority of the Scriptures above the authority of every post-apostolic human being. That group naturally includes the bishop of Rome, whom Jerome held in high regard.

Notice another translation of the same passage below:

Jerome (347-420):

‘The Lord shall tell in the writings of peoples and of the princes, of them that have been in her.’ (verse 6) He did not say those who are in her, but those who have been in her. ‘The Lord shall tell;’ and how shall he tell? Not in word, but in writing. In whose writing? That of the peoples? That of the peoples is not sufficient. But he also says in that of the princes; and of what princes? They who *are* in her? he did not say this, but who *have been* in her. See, therefore, how full the Holy Scriptures are of sacraments (sacramentis, symbols). We read of the Apostle Paul, we read of Peter, and we read of him [Paul] saying, ‘Do you seek a proof of Christ that speaketh in me?’ (2 Cor. 13:3) And what Paul speaks, Christ speaks; for ‘He who receiveth you receiveth me.’ (Matt. 10:40) Therefore our Lord and Savior telleth us, and speaketh in the writings of His princes. The Lord will tell in the writings of the peoples, in the Holy Writings. Which writing is read by all the people, that is, that all may understand. He saith what this is. As the apostles have written so also the Lord Himself; that is, He hath spoken by His evangelists, and that not a few, but that all may understand. Plato wrote writings, but he wrote not for the peoples, but for the few. For scarcely three men understand him. These indeed, that is, the princes of the Church and princes of Christ, have not written for a few, but for the whole people. And of the princes, that is, of the apostles, and evangelists of those who have been in her. See ye what he says. Who have been, not who are; that, the apostles excepted, whatever else is said afterwards is cut off, hath no authority afterwards. Although, therefore, anyone after the apostles, although he may be eloquent, he hath no authority, because ‘The Lord shall tell in the writing of peoples, and of these princes that have been in her.’

Dominus narrabit in scriptura populorum, et principum horum qui fuerunt in ea. Non dixit, qui sunt in ea, sed qui fuerunt in ea. Dominus narrabit: et quo modo narrabit? Non verbo, sed scriptura. In cujus scriptura? In populorum. Non sufficit in populorum, sed etiam principum dicit. Et quorum principum? Qui sunt in ea. Non dixit hoc, sed qui fuerunt in ea. Videte ergo quomodo Scriptura sancta sacramentis plena est. Legimus apostolum Paulum: legimus Petrum, et legimus illum dicentem: An experimentum ejus quaeritis, qui in me loquitur Christus? Et quod Paulus loquitur, loquitur Christus. Qui enim vos recipit, me recipit. Dominus ergo noster atque Salvator, narrat nobis et loquitur, in scripturis principum suorum. Dominus narrabit in Scripturis populorum: in Scripturis sanctis. Quae Scriptura populis omnibus legitur, hoc est, ut omnes intelligant. Quod dicit, hoc est: Sicut scripserunt apostoli, sic et ipse Dominus, hoc est, per Evangelia sua locutus est, non ut pauci intelligerent, sed ut omnes. Plato scripsit in scriptura, sed non scripsit populis, sed paucis. Vix enim intelligunt tres homines. Isti vero, hoc est, principes Ecclesiae et principes Christi, non scripserunt paucis, sed universo populo. Et principum, hoc est, apostolorum, et evangelistarum, horum qui fuerunt in ea. Videte quid dicat: Qui fuerunt, non qui sunt: ut, exceptis apostolis, quodcumque aliud postea dicetur, abscindatur, non habeat postea auctoritatem. Quamvis ergo sanctus sit aliquis post apostolos: quamvis disertus sit, non habet auctoritatem. Quoniam Dominus narrat in scriptura populorum, et principum horum qui fuerunt in ea.

Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus LXXXVI, PL 26:1083-1084; see John Harrison, Whose Are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1867), pp.481-482.

Since the preceding quotation is already discussed above, let us continue on to the next quotation.

Jerome (347-420):

What is the function of commentators? They expound the statements of someone else; they express in simple language views that have been expressed in an obscure manner; they quote the opinions of many individuals and they say: ‘Some interpret this passage in this sense, others, in another sense’; they attempt to support their own understanding and interpretation with these testimonies in this fashion, so that the prudent reader, after reading the different interpretations and studying which of these many views are to be accepted and which rejected, will judge for himself which is the more correct; and, like the expert banker, will reject the falsely minted coin.

FC, Vol. 53, St. Jerome – Dogmatic and Polemical Works, The Apology Against the Books of Rufinus, Book I, §16 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1965), p. 79.

What is particularly interesting about Jerome’s comment is his support here of private judgment. The individual can read many commentators, but at the end of the day he must decide which to accept.

Jerome (347-420):

. . . let us call upon the Lord, probe the depths of His sacred writings, and be guided in our interpretation by other testimonies from Holy Writ. Whatever we cannot fathom in the deep recesses of the Old Testament, we shall penetrate and explain from the depth of the New Testament in the roar of God’s cataracts—His prophets and apostles.

FC, Vol. 57, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 2, Homily 92 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1966), p. 246.

The “cataracts” there are waterfalls, not vision problems. Jerome is affirming both the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture and the principle that the more clear New Testament makes plain the more obscure Old Testament passages.

Jerome (347-420):

Here we are taught, that the lay-people ought to have the word of God, not only sufficiently, but also with abundance, and to teach and counsel others.

Hic ostenditur verbum Christi non sufficienter, sed abundanter etiam laicos habere debere: et docere se invicem, vel monere.

In Epistolam Ad Colossenses, Caput III, PL30:859; translation in John Jewel, Works, The Second Portion, the Reply to Harding’s Answer (Cambridge: The Parker Society, 1848), p. 685..

The magisterium of the laity, and the necessity that they have the Word of God (by which Jerome means the Scriptures) is something that is the natural consequence of Jerome’s view of formal sufficiency.

From Jerome’s Palestinian lodgings we may journey back to the West to Augustine, a North African bishop who needs no introduction.

Augustine (354-430):

I begin, therefore, by requesting you to lay aside the opinion which you have too easily formed concerning me, and dismiss those sentiments, though they are gratifying evidences of your goodwill, and believe my testimony rather than any other’s regarding myself, if you reciprocate my affection. For such is the depth of the Christian Scriptures, that even if I were attempting to study them and nothing else from early boyhood to decrepit old age, with the utmost leisure, the most unwearied zeal, and talents greater than I have, I would be still daily making progress in discovering their treasures; not that there is so great difficulty in coming through them to know the things necessary to salvation, but when any one has accepted these truths with the faith that is indispensable as the foundation of a life of piety and uprightness, so many things which are veiled under manifold shadows of mystery remain to be inquired into by those who are advancing in the study, and so great is the depth of wisdom not only in the words in which these have been expressed, but also in the things themselves, that the experience of the oldest, the ablest, and the most zealous students of Scripture illustrates what Scripture itself has said: “When a man hath done, then he beginneth.”

NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 137, Chapter 1, §3.

What is interesting about the preceding quotation is that even in the midst of talking about plumbing the depths of Scripture, Augustine makes clear that the necessary doctrines are not the difficult ones.

Augustine (354-430):

Consider, moreover, the style in which Sacred Scripture is composed,—how accessible it is to all men, though its deeper mysteries are penetrable to very few. The plain truths which it contains it declares in the artless language of familiar friendship to the hearts both of the unlearned and of the learned; but even the truths which it veils in symbols it does not set forth in stiff and stately sentences, which a mind somewhat sluggish and uneducated might shrink from approaching, as a poor man shrinks from the presence of the rich; but, by the condescension of its style, it invites all not only to be fed with the truth which is plain, but also to be exercised by the truth which is concealed, having both in its simple and in its obscure portions the same truth. Lest what is easily understood should beget satiety in the reader, the same truth being in another place more obscurely expressed becomes again desired, and, being desired, is somehow invested with a new attractiveness, and thus is received with pleasure into the heart. By these means wayward minds are corrected, weak minds are nourished, and strong minds are filled with pleasure, in such a way as is profitable to all. This doctrine has no enemy but the man who, being in error, is ignorant of its incomparable usefulness, or, being spiritually diseased, is averse to its healing power.

NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 137, Chapter 5, §18. See also FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, 137. Addressed to Volusian (412 AD) (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 34.

Notice that Augustine points out that the important parts are clear, but that there are some less clear portions that may serve as exercise, so that we may avoid spiritual flabbiness.

Augustine (354-430):

For if we were not encouraged by Him, and invited to understand Him; if He abandoned us as contemptible, since we were not able to partake His divinity if He did not partake our mortality and come to us to speak His gospel to us; if He had not willed to partake with us what in us is abject and most small, — then we might think that He who took on Himself our smallness, had not been willing to bestow on us His own greatness. This I have said lest any should blame us as over-bold in handling these matters, or despair of himself that he should be able to understand, by God’s gift, what the Son of God has deigned to speak to him. Therefore what He has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked.

NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, §1.

The above insight is similar to one of the points we made in introducing the topic. The point of Scripture is to communicate, therefore God has taken care that the form of Scripture will be such as can be understood.

Augustine (354-430):

“And ye have no need that any man teach you, because His unction teacheth you concerning all things.” Then to what purpose is it that “we,” my brethren, teach you? If “His unction teacheth you concerning all things,” it seems we labor without a cause. And what mean we, to cry out as we do? Let us leave you to His unction, and let His unction teach you. But this is putting the question only to myself: I put it also to that same apostle: let him deign to hear a babe that asks of him: to John himself I say, Had those the unction to whom thou wast speaking? Thou hast said, “His unction teacheth you concerning all things.” To what purpose hast thou written an Epistle like this? what teaching didst “thou” give them? what instruction? what edification? See here now, brethren, see a mighty mystery. The sound of our words strikes the ears, the Master is within. Do not suppose that any man learns ought from man. We can admonish by the sound of our voice; if there be not One within that shall teach, vain is the noise we make. Aye, brethren, have yea mind to know it? Have ye not all heard this present discourse? and yet how many will go from this place untaught! I, for my part, have spoken to all; but they to whom that Unction within speaketh not, they whom the Holy Ghost within teacheth not, those go back untaught. The teachings of the master from without are a sort of aids and admonitions. He that teacheth the hearts, hath His chair in heaven. Therefore saith He also Himself in the Gospel: “Call no man your master upon earth; One is your Master, even Christ.” Let Him therefore Himself speak to you within, when not one of mankind is there: for though there be some one at thy side, there is none in thine heart. Yet let there not be none in thine heart: let Christ be in thine heart: let His unction be in the heart, lest it be a heart thirsting in the wilderness, and having no fountains to be watered withal. There is then, I say, a Master within that teacheth: Christ teacheth; His inspiration teacheth. Where His inspiration and His unction is not, in vain do words make a noise from without. So are the words, brethren, which we speak from without, as is the husbandman to the tree: from without he worketh, applieth water and diligence of culture; let him from without apply what he will, does he form the apples? does he clothe the nakedness of the wood with a shady covering of leaves? does he do any thing like this from within? But whose doing is this? Hear the husbandman, the apostle: both see what we are, and hear the Master within: “I have planted, Apollos hath watered; but God gave the increase: neither he that planteth is any thing, neither he that watereth, but He that giveth the increase, even God.” This then we say to you: whether we plant, or whether we water, by speaking we are not any thing; but He that giveth the increase, even God: that is, “His unction which teacheth you concerning all things.”

NPNF1: Vol. VII, Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 3, 1 John 2:18-27, §13.

What is especially important about the preceding is that Augustine is recognizing the role of the Spirit inwardly. Some of our opponents seem to want to mock the idea that are taught by God inwardly, but that is precisely Augustine’s argument. It is because of an absence of this inward teaching that even the plain Scriptures can be insufficient to persuade someone of the truth.

Augustine (354-430):

For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book.

Alternative translation:
The fact is, after all, that in the passages that are put plainly in scripture is to be found everything that touches upon faith, and good morals, that is to say hope, charity, which we dealt with in the previous book.

NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 9; alternative translation in John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., De Doctrina Christiana, Book II, Chapter 9, §14 (New York: New City Press, 1996), p. 135.

Scripture is the rule of faith and life, and these rules are set forth plainly. Like the quotation from Chrysostom above, it is hard to see how Augustine could express himself in a more Reformed way.

Augustine (354-430):

And while every man may find there all that he has learnt of useful elsewhere, he will find there in much greater abundance things that are to be found nowhere else, but can be learnt only in the wonderful sublimity and wonderful simplicity of the Scriptures.

NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 42.

Notice that Augustine not only makes Scripture a sole source for certain things, he praises both the sublimity, and more importantly (for our purposes) the simplicity of Scripture. The “sole source” aspect may relate to the material sufficiency of Scripture, but simplicity relates to its formal sufficiency.

Augustine (354-430):

Nor is that any reason why they should be crowed over by that holy and perfect man Antony, the Egyptian monk, who is said to have known the divine Scriptures by heart simply through hearing them, though he himself didn’t know how to read, and to have understood their meaning through intelligent reflection on them; or for that matter by that barbarian slave, a Christian, about whom we have recently been informed by the most serious and trustworthy men.

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., De Doctrina Christiana, Prologue 4 (New York: New City Press, 1996), p. 102.

The preceding quotation illustrates the fact that even an illiterate person can “read” the Scriptures (by hearing them) and understand their meaning.

Augustine (354-430):

As I said a little ago, when these men are beset by clear testimonies of Scripture, and cannot escape from their grasp, they declare that the passage is spurious. The declaration only shows their aversion to the truth, and their obstinacy in error.

NPNF1: Vol. IV, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XI, §2.

The point of providing the quotation above is simply to illustrate one place where Augustine took the position that the Scriptures are clear.

Augustine (354-430):

No Gentile, therefore, it he were not perverse and obstinate, would despise these books merely because be is not subject to the law of the Hebrews, to whom the books belong; but would think highly of the books, no matter whose they were, on finding in them prophecies of such ancient date, and of what he sees now taking place. Instead of despising Christ Jesus because He is foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures, he would conclude that one thought worthy of being the subject of prophetic description, whoever the writers might be, for so many ages before His coming into the world, — sometimes in plain announcements, sometimes in figure by symbolic actions and utterances, — must claim to be regarded with profound admiration and reverence, and to be followed with implicit reliance. Thus the facts of Christian history would prove the truth of the prophecy, and the prophecy would prove the claims of Christ. Call this fancy, if it is not actually the case that men all over the world have been led, and are now led, to believe in Christ by reading these books.

NPNF1: Vol. IV, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XVI, §20.

Although there is a reference in the paragraph above to “plain announcements,” it seems that the most interesting aspect of the paragraph is really Augustine’s point that people are led to Christ through reading the books. That implies that the books themselves are formally sufficient to lead a person to Christ. It’s not an explicit way of making the claim for formal sufficiency, but it is a very strong implicit way.

Augustine (354-430):

All things that are read from the Holy Scriptures in order to our instruction and salvation, it behooves us to hear with earnest heed. Yet most of all must those things be commended to our memory, which are of most force against heretics; whose insidious designs cease not to circumvent all that are weaker and more negligent. Remember that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ both died for us, and rose again; died, to wit, for our offenses, rose again for our justification. Even as ye have just heard concerning the two disciples whom He met with in the way, how “their eyes were holden that they should not know Him:” and He found them despairing of the redemption that was in Christ, and deeming that now He had suffered and was dead as a man, not accounting that as Son of God He ever liveth; and deeming too that He was so dead in the flesh as not to come to life again, but just as one of the prophets: as those of you who were attentive have just now heard their own words. Then “He opened to them the Scriptures, beginning at Moses,” and going through all the prophets, showing them that all He had suffered had been foretold, lest they should be more staggered if the Lord should rise again, and the more fail to believe Him, if these things had not been told before concerning Him. For the firmness of faith is in this, that all things which came to pass in Christ were foretold. The disciples, then, knew Him not, save “in the breaking of bread.” And truly he that eateth and drinketh not judgment to himself in the breaking of bread cloth know Christ. Afterward also those eleven “thought they saw a spirit.” He gave Himself to be handled by them, who also gave Himself to be crucified; to be crucified by enemies, to be handled by friends: yet the Physician of all, both of the ungodliness of those, and of the unbelief of these. For ye heard when the Acts of the Apostles were read, how many thousands of Christ’s slayers believed. If those believed afterwards who had killed, should not those believe who for a little while doubted? And yet even in regard of them, (a thing which ye ought especially to observe, and to commit to your memory, because that which shall make us strong against insidious errors, God has been pleased to put in the Scriptures, against which no man dares to speak, who in any sort wishes to seem a Christian), when He had given Himself to be handled by them, that did not suffice Him, but He would also confirm by means of the Scriptures the heart of them that believe: for He looked forward to us who should be afterwards; seeing that in Him we have nothing that we can handle, but have that which we may read. For if those believed only because they held and handled, what shall we do? Now, Christ is ascended into heaven; He is not to come save at the end, to judge the quick and the dead. Whereby shall we believe, but by that whereby it was His will that even those who handled Him should be confirmed? For He opened to them the Scriptures and showed them that it behooved Christ to suffer, and that all things should be fulfilled which were written of Him in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms. He embraced in His discourse the whole ancient text of the Scriptures. All that there is of those former Scriptures tells of Christ; but only if it find ears. He also “opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures.” Whence we also must pray for this, that He would open our understanding.

NPNF1: Vol. VII, Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 2, 1 John 2:12-17, §1.

What is particularly interesting about the preceding paragraph is that Jesus is described as coming to us in the writings of Scripture, as opposed to being handled. This not only has a bearing on Augustine’s view of the Eucharist, but more especially on the fact that the purpose of Scripture is to provide Jesus to us. That logically leads one to formal sufficiency, even though it may not express it itself.

Augustine (354-430) commenting on v. 4 of Psalm 8:

Out of the mouths of infants and suckling children you have perfected praise, in the sense that those who want to gain knowledge of your magnificence should begin from belief in the scriptures. Your magnificence is raised above the scriptures because it surpasses and stretches beyond the proclamations of all words and tongues. Therefore God has brought the scriptures right down within the range of infants and nurslings, as it is sung in another psalm: He bowed the heavens and came down (Ps 17:10 (18:9)). This he did on account of his enemies who, being enemies of the cross of Christ through their pride and talkativeness, cannot be of any use to infants and nurslings, even when they say some things that are true. This is how the enemy-cum-defender is toppled. Whether it is wisdom of the very name of Christ which he gives the impression of upholding, nonetheless it is from the step of this very faith that he mounts his attack on that truth which he is so ready to promise. It is crystal-clear that he does not have the truth, for by attacking its first step, which is faith, he proves he has not the faintest idea how to climb up to itBy this means, therefore, that rash and blind person who promises truth but who is also its enemy-cum-defender is toppled. This happens when the heavens are seen as the works of God’s fingers, that is, when the scriptures, brought right down to the slowness of babies’ comprehension, are understood. They raise these infants up to the very things of which they tell with such conviction; but the infants are now well nurtured and strengthened to scale the heights and understand things eternal, through the humility of faith rooted in a history which has been worked out within time. Those heavens, that is, those books, are indeed the works of God’s fingers, for it was by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the saints that they were written. Those who sought their own glory rather than the salvation of humankind spoke without the Holy Spirit, in whom are the depths of the mercy of God.

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 15, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms, Psalms 1-32, Psalm 8.8 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 133.

Can one say that the form of the Scriptures is more sufficient in a stronger way than saying that the simplest members of society can understand them? If so, then there may be a stronger way to express formal sufficiency than the preceding quotation.

Augustine (354-430):

When the apostle said, Do you not know that your body is the temple in your midst of the Holy Spirit whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a great price, he immediately goes on to say, Glorify God, then, in your body (1 Cor 6:19-20). There he showed with utter clarity that the Holy Spirit is God and that he should be glorified in our body as if in his temple. The apostle Peter said to Ananias, Have you dared to lie to the Holy Spirit? And to show that the Holy Spirit is God, he said, You have not lied to men, but to God (Acts 5:3-4).

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Arianism and Other Heresies, Answer to Maximinus the Arian, Book II:XXI.1, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 304.

Of course, the above instance is just one instance where Augustine ascribes clarity to Scripture, even on points that were debated (some people tried to deny that the Holy Spirit is God, for example). Nevertheless, many other instances coudl be provided.

Augustine (354-430):

The Lord refers to these in a parable, though his meaning is perfectly clear, when he says, (Then Augustine quotes Mt 21:33-43 & Ps 118:22-23 and asks) What could be plainer, clearer, more evident than this?

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Arianism and Other Heresies, Answer to an Enemy of the Law and the Prophets, Book II.16, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 421.

The above is just a couple more examples of Augustine commenting on the clarity of Scripture in specific examples.

Augustine (354-430):

You exaggerate “how difficult the knowledge of the sacred scriptures is,” claiming that “it is suited for only the learned few, . . .”

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians, II, Answer to Julian, Book V:2, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 432.

The line above is interesting because it illustrates the attitude of the heretic toward Scripture, compared with the attitude of Augustine (note his comment about infants above).

Augustine (354-430):

But where the matter is obvious, we ought not to add our interpretation to the meaning of the divine Scripture, for this is not done out of human ignorance, but out of perverse pride.

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians, II, Answer to Julian, Book V:7, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 436.

The above combines the two themes (1) of examples of “obvious” or clear teachings in Scripture and (2) of opposing those who err by trying to make something obvious into something oblivious.

Augustine (354-430):

This, after all, is the reason why a young man corrects his way of life: because he meditates upon the words of God as he ought to meditate upon them, observes them because he meditates upon them, and lives correctly because he observes them. This, then, is the reason for correcting his way of life: because he observes the words of God.

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians, II, Answer to Julian, Book VI:76, Part 1, Vol. 24, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1998), p. 528. This statement by Augustine is meaningless if it does not presuppose the general perspicuity of Holy Scripture.

The above paragraph highlights Augustine’s view that Scriptures are themselves our rule of life. This is, of course, similar to the Reformed view we highlighted at the beginning of this discussion. Then Augustine explains that the way in which this rule is applied to life is through meditation, which shows that Augustine views the Scriptures as formally sufficient.

Augustine (354-430):

Our volumes are put up for sale in public; the light never needs to blush. Let them buy them, read them, believe them; or else buy them, read them, make fun of them. Those Scriptures know how to hold people guilty who read them and don’t believe.

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 198.20 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), pp. 195-196.

This is not expressly a statement of formal sufficiency, but it is a powerful way of saying that the Scriptures are stand-alone documents. They themselves hold their mockers/disbelievers guilty.

Augustine to Julian:

You in fact try to obscure the lights of the holy scriptures which shine with certain truth by the complexity of your evil arguments. After all, what is clearer than what I just said: Human beings have become like vanity; their days pass like a shadow (Ps 144:4)? That surely would not have happened, if they had remained in the likeness of God in which they were created. What is clearer than the statement: As in Adam all die, so too in Christ all will be brought to life (1 Cor 15:22)? What is clearer than the words: Who, after all, is clean from filth? Not even an infant whose life has lasted a single day on earth (Jb 14:4-5 LXX)? And there are many other passages which you try to wrap in darkness and twist to your perverse meaning by your empty chatter.

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:5, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 58.

Augustine is using the same “light” metaphor that we have already identified many times to say that the Scriptures are clear and readily understandable. Furthermore, Augustine is accusing Julian of trying to make the Scriptures unclear by clouding them. The Scriptures themselves, without anyone’s interferences, are clear beams of light to Augustine. That’s the perfect metaphor of the formal sufficiency of Scripture – a metaphor Scripture itself employs (as we already observed above).


They turn obscure ideas into their teaching; you try to obscure clear ones with your teaching. What, after all, is clearer than the statement of the apostle that sin entered this world through one man, and through sin death, and in that way it was passed on to all human beings?

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:25, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 66.

These are the same thoughts as before. Scripture is clear, but heretics try to make it obscure.

Augustine (354-430):

Why are you trying to wrap yourself in your obscure statements in opposition to the clear statements of the apostle? In speaking of God, he says, He rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son (Col 1:13), and you say that he said this, but excluded the little ones.

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:64, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 90.

This is the same theme as the previous quotation.

Augustine (354-430):

On this account he cries out, Wretched man that I am, who will set me free from the body of this death? (Rom 7:24). And you close your eyes to the perfectly clear truth and you explain his groan, not as it is evident to all, but as it pleases you, when you say that Who will set me free from the body of this death? (Rom 7:24) means: “Who will set me free from the guilt of my own sins which I committed?” He said, I do the evil that I do not will (Rom 7:19), and you say: “the sins which I committed.”

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians III, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:65, Part 1, Vol. 25, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), p. 95.

The above are some more examples of the same general principle of Scripture being clear, but heretics trying to ignore that plain truth.

Augustine (354-430):

The person who reads some writing out loud to other listeners obviously knows what he is pronouncing, while the one who teaches people in literacy classes does this so that they too may know how to read. Each of them, all the same, is handing on what he has received. In the same sort of way those too who explain to an audience what they understand in the scriptures are, as it were, performing the office of reader and pronouncing letters they know, while those who lay down rules about how they are to be understood are like the person who teaches literacy, who gives out the rules, that is, on how to read. So just as the person who knows how to read does not require another reader, when he gets hold of a volume, to tell him what is written in it, in the same way, those who have grasped the rules we are endeavoring to pass on will retain a knowledge of these rules, like letters, when they come across anything obscure in the holy books, and will not require another person who understands to uncover for them what is shrouded in obscurity. Instead, by following up certain clues, they will be able themselves to get the hidden meaning of a passage without any error—or at the very least to avoid falling into any absurdly wrongheaded opinion.

See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part I, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., De Doctrina Christiana, Prologue §9 (New York: New City Press, 1996), p. 104.

Notice that someone might say that this implies that Scriptures are not able to be understood on their own. What Augustine is actually saying, though, is that once one understands the rules for interpretation, he does not need a teacher to arrive at a sufficient understanding.

From Augustine, we may stay in the West, moving into Europe to one of the opponents of Augustinianism, the arguably semi-Pelagian John Cassian.

John Cassian (360-430s?):

Serenus: “The authority of Holy Scripture has said some things so lucidly and clearly for our instruction, even to those of limited intelligence, that not only are they not veiled in the obscurity of a hidden meaning but they do not even need to be explained, and they offer intelligibility and meaning at first glance.”

ACW, Vol. 57, Boniface Ramsey, O.P., trans., John Cassian: The Conferences, Eighth Conference, Chapter 3.1 (New York: Newman Press, 1997), p. 292.

Obviously, this is Cassian quoting Serenus (an abbot whom Cassian greatly admired), rather than Cassian speaking himself. Nevertheless, the quotation shows a very similar attitude to Scripture to the attitude we’ve seen above. Some things in Scripture are said so clearly that no explanation is necessary – even for people of limited intelligence.

John Cassian (360-430s?):

This man therefore, when some of the brethren were wondering at the splendid light of his knowledge and were asking of him some meanings of Scripture, said that a monk who wanted to acquire a knowledge of the Scriptures ought not to spend his labor on the works of commentators, but rather to keep all the efforts of his mind and intentions of his heart set on purifying himself from carnal vices: for when these are driven out, at once the eyes of the heart, as if the veil of the passions were removed, will begin as it were naturally to gaze on the mysteries of Scripture: since they were not declared to us by the grace of the Holy Spirit in order that they should remain unknown and obscure; but they are rendered obscure by our fault, as the veil of our sins covers the eyes of the heart, and when these are restored to their natural state of health, the mere reading of Holy Scripture is by itself amply sufficient for beholding the true knowledge, nor do they need the aid of commentators, just as these eyes of flesh need no man’s teaching how to see, provided that they are free from dimness or the darkness of blindness. For this reason there have arisen so great differences and mistakes among commentators because most of them, paying no sort of attention towards purifying the mind, rush into the work of interpreting the Scriptures, and in proportion to the density or impurity of their heart form opinions that are at variance with and contrary to each other’s and to the faith, and so are unable to take in the light of truth.

Hic ergo quibusdam fratribus admirantibus tam praeclarum scientiae ejus lumen, et ab eodem quosdam Scripturarum sensus inquirentibus, ait: Monachum ad Scripturarum notitiam pertingere cupientem, nequaquam debere labores suos erga commentatorum libros impendere, sed potius omnem mentis industriam et intentionem cordis erga emundationem vitiorum carnalium detinere. Quibus expulsis confestim cordis oculi, sublato velamine passionum, sacramenta Scripturarum velut naturaliter incipient contemplari. Siquidem nobis non ut essent incognita vel obscura, sancti Spiritus gratia promulgata sunt: sed nostro vitio velamine peccatorum cordis oculos obnubente redduntur obscura, quibus rursum naturali redditis sanitati, ipsa Scripturarum sanctarum lectio ad contemplationem verae scientiae abunde etiam sola sufficiat, nec eos commentatorum institutionibus indigere: sicut oculi isti carnales ad videndum nullius egent doctrina, si modo fuerint a suffusione, vel caligine caecitatis immunes. Ideo namque et tanta varietas erroresque inter tractatores ipsos exorti sunt, quod plerique minime erga purgationem mentis adhibita diligentia prosilientes ad interpretandum eas, pro pinguedine vel immunditia cordis sui diversa atque contraria vel fidei, vel sibimet sentientes, veritatis lumen comprehendere nequiverunt.

De Coenobiorum Institutis Libri Duodecim, Liber Quintus, Caput XXXIV, PL 49:250-254; translation in NPNF2: Vol. XI, Institutes of The Coenobia, 5:34.

Notice that the identified obstacle for understanding Scripture is in the reader, not in the Scripture. Moreover, it is not in the nature of the person as a reader, but in the nature of the person as to sin. The person who does not love righteousness sets obstacles for himself, but the person who does not do so sees the meaning of Scripture clearly, even without the aid of commentators.

John Cassian

And indeed we will prove this not only by discussion and argument, but by the voice of Divinity Itself: for nothing testifies of God better than things divine. And because nothing knows itself better than the very glory of God, we believe nothing on the subject of God with greater right than those writings in which God Himself is His own witness.

NPNF2: Vol. 11, On the Incarnation of Christ Against Nestorius, Book 7, Chapter 17.

The preceding quotation may seem to mostly reflect the supremacy of Scripture, but if you consider it closely, you will observe that Cassian is arguing the very voice of Divinity itself is going to prove his case. That means that the form, as well as the matter, is sufficient for his purposes.

We’ll now jump back to the east, this time to a man who could be considered one of the desert fathers of Egypt. The jump is not as dramatic as one might think, since John Cassian is known for having brought attention to a number of the desert fathers.

Isidore of Pelusium (fl. 412 – d. 435), note σαφηνείᾳ τοσαύτῃ (so great perspicuity):

If God had had respect only to his own dignity, and not the profit of the reader, he would have used heavenly and divine words and examples. But since he was legislating for men that are weak and in need of human words (for thus they were able easily to understand things above them), he expressed his divine doctrines in common words, to the intent that even a woman and a child, and the most ignorant of all men, might obtain some profit even from the very hearing. For, the word having a consideration for the salvation of the multitude, and even rustics, is expressed with so much clearness through the philanthropy of the legislator, as to deprive no one of the benefit proportioned to his powers; nor hath it neglected the wiser of mankind; for in this so great clearness, such unutterable words dwell like treasures, that even the wisest and most learned of men are lost in the profundity of the thoughts, and often confess themselves overcome by the incomprehensibility of the wisdom.

Εἰ γὰρ πρὸς τὴν αὐτοῦ ἀξίαν μόνον προσέσχεν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ μὴ πρὸς τὴν ὠφέλειαν τῶν ἐντευξομένων, οὐρανίοις ἂν καὶ θείοις λόγοις τε καὶ παραδείγμασιν ἐχρήσατο. Ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ ἀνθρώποις ἐνομοθέτε: ἀσθενέσι τυγχάνουσι, καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων δεομένοις λόγων (οὕτω γὰρ ῥᾳδίως τὰ ὑπὲρ αὐτοὺς νοῆσαι ἠδύναντο), ἰδιωτικαῖς λέξεσιν ἐκέρασε τὰ θεῖα μαθήματα, ἵνα καὶ γυνὴ καὶ παῖς καὶ ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων ἀμαθέστατος κερδάνῃ τι καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀκροάσεως. Τῆς γὰρ τῶν πολλῶν καὶ ἀγελαιοτέρων φροντίσας σωτηρίας ὁ λόγος, σαφηνείᾳ τοσαύτῃ διὰ φιλανθρωπίαν τοῦ νομοθέτου κραθεὶς, οὐδένα τῆς κατὰ δύναμιν ὠφελείας ἀποστερεῖ. Οὔτε δὲ τῶν σοφωτέρων ἠμέλησεν. Ἐν τοσαύτῃ γὰρ σαφηνείᾳ οὕτως ἀπόῤῥητοι λόγοι καθάπερ θησαυροί τινες ἐνοικοῦσιν, ὡς καὶ τοὺς σοφωτάτους καὶ ἐλλογιμωτάτους τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ βάθος τῶν νοημάτων ἰλιγγιᾷν, καὶ παραχωρεῖν πολλάκις τῷ ἀκαταλήπτῳ τῆς σοφίας.

Epistolarium, Liber II, Epistola 5, PG 78:461-464; for translation, see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 284.

Isiodore’s comment illustrates that the form of Scripture is one that provides clear instruction. It’s a very similar comment to the comments we ourselves make, and to those comments already identified in the preceding fathers.

Isidore of Pelusium (fl. 412 – d. 435):

If the truth be joined to eloquent language, it is able to profit the educated, but to all others it will be of no use or advantage. Wherefore the Scripture hath declared the truth in simple language, that both the unlearned and the wise, and even children and women, might learn it. For by this the wise are in no respect injured; but by the other [i.e. Scripture being indited in superior language] the greater part of the world would have been injured; and if it behoved it to consider the few, it more especially behoved it to consider the many; and since it has considered all, it is clearly shown to be divine and heavenly.

Εἰ δʼ ἡ ἀλήθεια τῇ καλλιεπείᾳ συναφθείη, δύναται μὲν τοὺς πεπαδευμένους ὠφελῆσαι, τοῖς δʼ καὶ ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἄχρηστος ἔσται καὶ ἀνωφελής. Διʼ ὅ καὶ ἡ Γραφὴ τὴν ἀλήθειαν πεζῷ λόγῳ ἡρμήνευσεν, ἵνα καὶ ἰδιῶται, καὶ σοφοὶ, καὶ παῖδες, καὶ γυναῖκες μάθοιεν. Ἐκ μὲν γὰρ τούτου οἱ οὐδὲν παραβλάπτονται• ἐκ δʼ ἐκείνου τὸ πλέον τῆς οἰκουμένης μέρος παρεβλάβη. Ἄν τινων οὖν ἐχρῆν φροντίσαι, μάλιστι μὲν τῶν πλειόνων. Ἐπειδὰν δὲ καὶ πάντων ἐφρόντισε, δείκνυται λαμπρῶς θεία οὖσα καὶ οὐράνιος.

Epistolarium, Liber IV, Epistola 67, PG 78:1125; for translation, see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 284.

This is a very similar comment to the preceding comment. Scripture is so easy that not only uneducated men could learn from it, but even women and children can learn from it.

Isidore of Pelusium (fl. 412 – d. 435):

If all things were plain, where should we make use of our understanding, there not being any investigation to make? But if all things were obscure, thus also we should fall, there being no discovery of the truth. But now, through those parts that are plain, those that are obscure are in a manner understood.

Greek text: Εἰ μὲν γὰρ πάντα ἦν δῆλα, ποῦ τῇ συνέσει ἐχρησάμεθα, μὴ οὔσης ζητήσεως; Εἰ δὲ πάντα ἄδηλα, καὶ οὕτως ἀναπεπτώκειμεν ἂν, μὴ οὔσης εὑρέσεως. Νῦν δὲ διὰ τῶν δῆλων, καὶ τὰ ἄδηλα τρόπον τινὰ καταλαμβάνεται.

Epistolarium, Liber IV, Epistola 82, PG 78:1144-1145; for translation, see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 285.

This is similar to the comment from Augustine we saw earlier about the difficult part serving as a sort of exercise. It also shows the key principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, and that the less clear parts are interpreted by the more clear parts.

Isidore of Pelusium (fl. 412 – d. 435):

The sacred and heavenly oracles, since they were spoken and written for the benefit of all mankind, were expressed in plain language. . . . All those who are engaged in husbandry, and the arts, and other occupations of life, derive profit from its clearness; learning both what is proper and what is just and what is useful in a moment of time.

Greek text: οἱ δὲ ἱεροὶ καὶ οὐράνιοι χρησμοὶ, ἐπειδὴ πρὸς ὠφέλειαν πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ἐῤῥέθησαν καὶ ἐγράφησαν, τῇ σαφηνείᾳ ἐκράθησαν….πάντες δʼ οἱ γεωργίαις καὶ τέχναις καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις ἀσχολίαις τοῦ βίου σχολάζοντες, ὠφελοῦνται ἐκ τῆς σαφηνείας• καὶ τὸ πρέπον, καὶ τὸ δίκαιον, καὶ τὸ συμφέρον ἐν ἀκαριαίᾳ καιροῦ ῥοπῇ μανθάνοντες.

Epistolarium, Liber IV, Epistola 91, PG 78:1152; for translation, see William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 285.

This is similar to the preceding quotations. The Scriptures are written in plain language, so that even farmers can understand them – not just educated city-folk.

Speaking of city-folk, we now move from the rural deserts of Egypt to the urban center of Alexandria in Egypt.

Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch, 412-444):

Such subtle and out-of-the-way problems do not require a doctrinal decision so much as a questioning and speculative investigation accompanied by a refusal to let the mind fall into improper views to be carried away from reasonableness. For it is written ‘seeking do thou seek and dwell with me.’ How can one clearly explain what holy writ has not stated clearly? For example it is written in the book of Genesis that in the beginning God made heaven and earth. Holy writ declared that he has made it and we accept this truth in faith. But meddlesome inquiry into the means, origin or method whereby heaven, earth and the rest of creation were brought into being has its harmful side, for there is no need to involve the mind in profundities. What divine Scripture does not state very clearly must remain unknown and be passed over in silence.

Lionel R. Wickham, trans., Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters, Doctrinal Questions and Answers #2 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1983), pp. 187-189.

What’s very interesting about the preceding quotation is that Cyril is arguing not just for the material sufficiency of Scripture for theological knowledge, but also on a limitation on theological knowledge framed by the form of Scripture. Specifically, those things that Scripture says obscurely (not “very clearly”) would remain unknown and must be passed over in silence.

That sounds like an even stronger formulation of formal sufficiency than we would be willing to adopt, since we do not require silence when Scripture speaks less clearly. But perhaps we will see that Cyril himself moderates this view to come closer to the Reformed view in his other comments.

Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444), Commenting on 1 Cor. 1:21:

By the foolishness of preaching he means the plainness of the phraseology of the inspired Scripture. Therefore, leaving off toiling in vain and reaping no fruit, and enduring to spend your labors upon things that are unprofitable, hear me rather, and eat that which is good namely, through the Evangelical proclamations, in which, saith he, your soul would abundantly delight, and be nourished. There is the true knowledge of God as he is, and instruction as to all virtue and propriety of conduct, becoming saints; and wisdom, such as with wonderful exactness rightly discerns everything that ought to be done, and perfectly fits the mind for activity in good works.

Μωρίαν δὲ τοῦ κηρύγματος τὴν κοινότητα τῆς λέξεως τῆς ἐνούσης τῇ θεοπνεύτῳ Γραφῇ, φησίν. Ἀφέντες οὖν τὸ εἰκῆ πονεῖν, καὶ ἀκαρπίαν συλλέγειν, καὶ δαπανᾷν ἀνέχεσθαι πόνους ἐπʼ ἀνωφελέσι πράγμασι, μᾶλλον ἀκούσατέ μου, καὶ φάγεσθε ἀγαθὰ τὰ διὰ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν δηλονότι, οἷς δὴ καὶ περιττῶς, φησὶν, ἐντρυφήσειεν ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν. Ἐκεῖ γνῶσις ἀληθὴς τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν Θεοῦ, καὶ ἀρετῆς ἁπάσης καὶ ἀγιοπρεποῦς εὐκοσμίας μάθημα καὶ σύνεσις, θαυμαστῶς ἕκαστα τῶν πρακτέων ὀρθῶς διακρίνοντα, καὶ τεχνίτην εἰς ἀγαθουργίαν ἀποτελοῦσα τὸν νοῦν•

Commentarium in Isaiam prophetam, Liber V, Tomus II, PG 70:1221; translation by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 181-182.

The preceding quotation highlights the fact that Scripture speaks plainly, and that in those plain teachings we find the rule of faith and life. While Cyril does not use the precise words we use, it is hard to suggest that here is saying anything different from what we say, even if we might not find these doctrines in the particular verse he has identified.

Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444):

Therefore the inspired Scripture is abundantly sufficient, even so that those who have been nourished by it ought to come forth wise and very prudent, and possessed of an understanding abundantly instructed in all things. …What that is profitable to us is not spoken by it? For, first, (what is also more excellent than all other things,) any one may see in it the glorious doctrine of the true knowledge of God. …Moreover, in addition to this, it teaches us how to order aright our life and conversation, and by its divine and sacred laws directs us in the way of righteousness, and makes the path of all equity clear to us.

Ἀπόχρη μὲν οὖν ἡ θεόπνευστος Γραφὴ καὶ πρός γε τὸ δεῖν ἀποφάναι σοφοὺς καὶ δοκιμωτάτους, καὶ διαρκεστάτην ἔχοντας σύνεσιν τοὺς ἐντεθραμμέους αὐτῇ• …Τί γὰρ τῶν ὀνησιφόρων οὐκ εἴρηται παρʼ αὐτῆς; πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ὅ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τιμαλφέστερον, κατίδοι τις ἐν αὐτῇ τοὺς τῆς ἀληθοῦς θεοπτίας ἐναστράπτοντας λόγους. …Εἶτα πρὸς τούτοις καὶ τοὺς τῆς εὐζωΐας ἡμῖν εἰσηγῆται τρόπους, νόμοις δὲ θείοις καὶ ἱεροῖς ἀπευθύνει πρὸς δικαιοσύνην, καὶ μὴν καὶ ἁπάσης ἡμῖν ἐπιεικείας ἐναργῆ καθίστησι τρίβον.

Contra Julianum, Liber VII, PG 76:852-853; translation by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, pp. 282-283.

Here Cyril even uses the very word “sufficient,” and says that the Scriptures are “abundantly sufficient.” And when he explains what he means, we see that he means that anyone can gain a knowledge of God from them, and that the path of righteousness is set forth clearly in them.

Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444):

But some one will say, that the divine scripture hath a style and diction common to all, vulgar and trite; whereas the things of the Greeks are expressed elegantly, and abound in grace and eloquence. We say, therefore, that the prophetical and Mosaic books are expressed in the Hebrew language; and, in order that they might be known to all, small and great, are usefully committed to a familiar diction, so as to transcend no man’s capacity.

Ἀλλʼ, ἴσως ἐρεῖ τις, ἡ μὲν θεία Γραφὴ κοινήν τε καὶ ἀγελαίαν, καὶ ἅπασι κατημαξευμένην ἔχει τὴν λέξιν• εὐστομεῖ δὲ τὰ Ἑλλήνων, καὶ καταπλουτεῖ τὸ ἐπίχαρι, καὶ πρός γε τούτῳ τὸ εὐεπές. Φαμὲν οὖν, ὅτι γλώττη μὲν Ἑβραίων ἐλαλήθη τὰ προφητῶν, καὶ αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ Μωσέως, ἵνα καὶ ὑπάρχῃ γνώριμα μικροῖς καὶ μεγάλοις, μετεποιήθη χρησίμως εἰς τὸ τῆς γλώττης εὐτριβὲς καὶ δυσέφικτον ἐχούσης παντελῶς οὐδές.

Contra Julianum, Liber VII, PG 76:853; for translation, see William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 399.

What’s interesting is that Cyril is responding to a complaint by his opponents that the Bible is written in a very simple, uncomplicated way. Whereas, in contrast, the Greek intellectuals wrote in a very complicated hard-to-understand way. Cyril’s response was not to argue that the Scriptures are written in a very complex way, but to point out the purpose of Scripture, namely that the Scripture was intended to be read and understood by all. This is speaking to the form of the Scriptures. In this case, it appears that Cyril is specifically referring to the form one or more of the Greek translations of the Old Testament, but you will see that Cyril’s comments are not elsewhere limited to those portions.

Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444) commenting on Isaiah 24:15-16:

From wings taken in this sense, he says, we heard of marvels – performed through Christ, that is; having been given spiritual guidance from the writings of the holy apostles and evangelists, and becoming acquainted with the divine signs worked by the Savior, we have an unwavering faith in them, trust, constancy, belief and excellent hope of the devout.

Robert Charles Hill (translator), Cyril of Alexandria: Commentary on Isaiah, Volume 2 (Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2008) pp. 115-16.

In the preceding quotation Cyril ascribes the spiritual guidance to the writings of the New Testament.

Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444) commenting on Isaiah 26::

By night my spirit watches for you, O God, because your commandments are light on the earth (v. 9). By night he refers to the time before the incarnation of the Lord, by watching the inspired foreknowledge, and by true light the Gospel of Christ, the sun of justice, which the earth everywhere is bidden learn. The learning is not from nature, in fact, like gazing or walking, but from zeal and attentiveness; the one who does not learn is removed from the living, and will not see the glory of Christ. Those who say, We hoped in your name and in your memory, in which our soul longs, necessarily make this offering as well; by admitting the divine light into their mind, dismissing the darkness of the former deceit, and seeing the gloom of sin dissipated, they offer songs of thanksgiving, as though saying that dawn is breaking upon them, and a daystar is now rising in their hearts, as Scripture says. To such people the divinely-inspired Paul also writes in these words, “Once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light”; and elsewhere as well, “We are all children of the light and children of the day, not of the night and of darkness”; the mind of believers is enlightened by the Gospel oracles. Consequently, the divinely-inspired David also says as if to the Lord Jesus Christ, “Your Law is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my paths.” In other words, the Law given through the all-wise Moses was, as it were, obscured by the gloom, so to say, and shadows — of the text, that is; but by the Gospel preaching the beauty of the reality is rendered bare and resplendent, and cheers the mind with the understanding of pious people like the infusion of a light.

Robert Charles Hill (translator), Cyril of Alexandria: Commentary on Isaiah, Volume 2 (Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2008) pp. 135-36.

What’s interesting about the preceding quotation is the fact that Cyril is turning to the same texts we do to make the same point. He is referring to the Scriptures as light, and he is showing that the more clear illuminates the less clear, even specifically referring to the role of the New Testament in making the Old Testament more clear where it was formerly more obscure.

More examples could be provided from Cyril’s voluminous writings, but it is time to head north to Cyrrhus, in Syria.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466):

The divine Scripture is accustomed to accommodate its lessons to those who are to be instructed; and to the perfect, to offer that which is perfect; and to the ignorant, elementary points and things suited to their ability.

Alternative translation:
Holy Scripture normally adapts the contents to the learners: to those who are mature proposing mature teachings, but to the immature the elements, in keeping with their capacity.

Μετρεῖν εἴωθε τοῖς παιδευομένοις ἡ θεία γραφὴ μαθήματα, καὶ τοῖς μὲν τελείοις προσφέρειν τὰ τέλεια, τοῖς ἀτελέσι δὲ τὰ στοιχειώδη, καὶ τῇ σφῶν δυνάμει συμβαίνοντα.

Quæstiones in Genesim, Interrogatio I, PG 80:77; translation in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, 3 Volumes (London: John Henry Jackson, publisher, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 285; alternative translation in Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: The Questions on the Octateuch, Volume 1, Questions on Genesis, Question 1 (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007) p. 7.

The preceding quotation is very similar to the ones we have already seen. Theodoret is saying that Scripture accomodates the reader.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466):

These simpletons fail to understand that the Lord God, when speaking to humans through humans adjusts his language to the limitations of the listeners.

Καὶ οὐ συνεῖδον οἱ ἄγαν ἠλίθιοι, ὡς ἀνθρώποις διʼ ἀνθρώπων διαλεγόμενος ὁ Δεσπότης Θεός, τῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων ἀσθενείᾳ τοὺς λόγους μετρεῖ.

Quæstiones in Genesim, Interrogatio XX, PG 80:104C; Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: The Questions on the Octateuch, Volume 1, Questions on Genesis, Question 20 (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007) p. 51.

This is the same thought as the previous one, although here Theodoret is speaking in stronger terms.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466):

The divine Scripture accommodates its language to men; and orders its words so that they may be able to understand.

Alternative translation:
Holy Scripture speaks in a manner suited to human beings and frames its expressions so we may receive them.

Προσφόρως τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἡ θεία γραφὴ διαλέγεται, καὶ ὡς ἀκούειν δύνανται μετασχηματίζει τοὺς λόγους·

Quæstiones in Genesim, Interrogatio LII, PG 80:156; translation in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, 3 Volumes (London: John Henry Jackson, publisher, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 285; alternative translation in Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: The Questions on the Octateuch, Volume 1, Questions on Genesis, Question 52 (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007) p. 111.

And again, Theodoret is saying much the same thing we showed him saying in the previous two quotations.

Theodoret speaks ill of those who charge Scripture with being shrouded in obscurity, which demonstrates how he would have regarded the modern day contentions of those who advocate for Rome’s position that denies Scripture’s sufficiency. Notice what he says in preface to his commentary on the Prophecy of Ezekiel:

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466):

Some people who have fallen foul of this complaint have endeavored to level charges at the divine Scripture, and especially the inspired oracles, of being shrouded in obscurity. To such people the divine-inspired Paul would retort, “Now, even if our Gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, but to the mature it is wisdom we are speaking.” In keeping with this, too, is what is said by our Lord and savior to the holy apostles, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom, whereas to those others it is not given;” and to explain the reason he immediately adds, “Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not understand” — that is, they willingly bring upon themselves the cloud of ignorance: if they turn to the Lord, as the apostle says, the veil will be lifted. Divine realities, therefore, are not obscure to everyone, only to those who are voluntarily blind; they ought to take note and realize that nothing worthwhile is readily accessible to human beings.

Ταύτῃ περιπεσόντες τῇ νόσῳ τινὲς τῆς θείας Γραφῆς κατ ηγορεῖν ἐπεχείρησαν, διαφερόντως δὲ τῶν προφητι κῶν θεσπισμάτων, ὡς ἀσαφείᾳ κεκαλυμμένων. Πρὸς οὓς ἂν εἰκότως ὁ θεσπέσιος εἴποι Παῦλος· «Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστι κεκαλυμμένον τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶ κεκαλυμμμένον· σοφίαν γὰρ λαλοῦ μεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις.» Συμφωνεῖ δὲ τούτοις καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Δεσπότου καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους ἀποστόλους εἰρημένα· «Ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυ στήρια τῆς βασιλείας, ἐκείνοις δὲ οὐ δέδοται·» καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν διδάσκων εὐθὺς ἐπάγει, ὅτι «Βλέποντες οὐ βλέπουσι, καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐ συνιοῦσιν.» Αὐτοὶ γὰρ, φησὶν, ἑκόντες ἐπισπῶνται τῆς ἀγνοίας τὸ νέφος· ἐὰν γὰρ ἐπιστρέψωσι πρὸς Κύριον, ᾗ φησιν ὁ θεῖος Ἀπόστολος, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα. Οὐ τοίνυν πᾶσίν ἐστιν ἀσαφῆ τὰ θεῖα, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἐθελουσίως τυφλώττουσιν· οὓς ἐχρῆν σκοπῆσαι, καὶ συνιδεῖν, ὅτι τῶν τιμίων οὐδὲν πρόχειρον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.

In Ezechielem – Præfatio, PG 81:808-809; Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets, Vol. Two, Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), preface, pp. 27-28.

Theodoret’s response to those who claim that Scriptures are obscure is the same as we have seen in many of the preceding fathers. He blames the obscurity on the sinfulness of men, and asserts that the Scriptures themselves are clear.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466):

Let no one, therefore, especially devotees of the true religion, adopt such a presumptuous attitude to the divine Spirit as to accuse his words of obscurity. Instead, in their longing to understand the sacred words, let them cry aloud with the divinely-inspired David, “Unveil my eyes, and I shall grasp the marvels of your law:” having promised the knowledge as a benefit, he will definitely grant the request. In fact, in our case, too, let us offer this request to the Lord, who according to the divine David gives wisdom to the blind, and according to blessed Isaiah to those in gloom and darkness, and let us venture upon a commentary on the divinely-inspired Ezekiel, attempt to plumb the depths of the prophecy as far as is possible for us, and make available to all religious people the value drawn from it.

Μηδεὶς τοίνυν, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν τῆς εὐσεβείας τρο φίμων, κατὰ τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος θρασυνέσθω, τοῖς τούτου λόγοις ἀσάφειαν ἐπιμεμφόμενος· ἀλλὰ νοῆσαι τοὺς ἱεροὺς ἐφιέμενος λόγους μετὰ τοῦ θεσπεσίου βοάτω Δαβίδ· «Ἀποκάλυψον τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς μου, καὶ κατανοήσω τὰ θαυμάσια ἐκ τοῦ νόμου σου.» Τεύξεται γὰρ πάντως τῆς αἰτήσεως, ἐπʼ ὠφελείᾳ τὴν γνῶσιν ἐπαγγείλας. Ταύτην γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς τὴν ἱκετείαν τῷ Δεσπότῃ προσφέροντες, ὃς σοφίζει τοὺς τυφλοὺς, κατὰ τὸν θεῖον Δαβὶδ, καὶ τοὺς ἐν σκότει καὶ τῇ ὁμίχλῃ, κατὰ τὸν μακάριον Ἡσαΐαν, τῆς τοῦ θεσπεσίου Ἐζεκιὴλ κατατολμήσωμεν ἑρμηνείας, καὶ τῆς προφητείας τὸ βάθος, ὡς ἡμῖν ἐφικτὸν, ἐρευνῆ σαι πειρασώμεθα, καὶ κοινὸν ἅπασι προθῆναι τοῖς εὐσεβέσι τὸ ἐντεῦθεν συναγόμενον κέρδος.

In Ezechielem – Præfatio, PG 81:809, 812; Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets, Vol. Two, Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), preface, p. 29.

This is a similar thought to the preceding one. Here, however, Theodoret adds the additional point that the one who lifts the blindness is the Holy Spirit. Thus, we should pray to Him for wisdom, as we read.

We now jump back to the West, this time to France to hear from a presbyter of the church in Marseilles.

Salvian the Presbyter (5th century):

In a word, holy deeds would be done by Christians if Christ has taught holy things. He who is worshiped can be judged by His worshippers. For how is a teacher good whose pupils we see are so evil? From this viewpoint, they are Christians; they listen to Him, they read Him. It is easy for all to understand the teaching of Christ.

FC, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, Book 4, §17 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 120-121.

Salvian the Presbyter (5th century):

“God therefore repented,” says the Holy Scripture, “that he had made man on the earth”; this does not indicate that God is subject to repentance or any other emotion, but rather that the divine word, to further our understanding of the true meaning of the Scriptures, speaks to us in terms of human feeling and shows the force of God’s anger under the name of repentance; moreover, the divine wrath is the punishment of the sinner.

Eva M. Sanford, translator, Salvian: On the Government of God, Book I, Chapter 7 (Columbia University Press, 1930) p. 53.

This statement above is a specific example of the principle of divine accommodation in Scripture that has been attested by many fathers above.

Salvian the Presbyter (5th century):

It is well: the foundations have been laid for a work undertaken from pious motives and from love of a sacred duty; they have not been laid in marshy ground or built of perishable stone, but are strengthened by the sacred treasures used in their building and by the skill of their divine architect. These foundations, as God himself says in his Gospel, cannot be shaken by raging winds, undermined by river floods, or washed away by the rains. Since the divine writings in some fashion lent their aid to the erection of this structure, and the Holy Scriptures performed the joiner’s task, the work itself must, through the help of the Lord Jesus Christ, be as strong as its makers. So this edifice receives its character from its parent stock and cannot be shaken while the builders remain sound.

As no one can tear down the walls of earthly houses without tearing apart their stones and mortar, so none can destroy this structure of ours unless he first destroys the materials of which it is composed. Since these certainly can in no way be weakened, we may safely assume the permanence of a building whose strength is insured by immortal aid.

The question is raised why, if everything in this world is controlled by the care and governance and judgment of God, the condition of the barbarians is so much better than ours, why among us the fortune of good men is harder than that of the wicked. Why should upright men fall ill and reprobates recover? Why does the whole world fall prey to powers for the most part unjust? Perhaps a rational and fairly consistent answer would be: “I do not know.” For I do not know the secrets of God. The oracle of his heavenly word is sufficient proof for me in this case. God says, as I have already proved in my earlier books, that all things are subject to his oversight, his rule and his judgment. If you wish to know what doctrines you must accept, you have the sacred writings: the perfect course is to hold fast what you have read in them.

Moreover, I would not have you ask me to account for God’s actions in the cases of which I speak. I am a man; I do not understand the secrets of God, I do not dare search them out, I am afraid to pry into them, for to seek to know more than is permitted is in itself a kind of rash sacrilege. God says that he moves and ordains all things: let that suffice. Do you ask me why one man is greater and another less, one wretched and another happy, one strong and another weak? Why indeed God does such things. I do not know, but the proof that he is the source of all actions should convince you fully. As God is greater than the sum total of human reason, our knowledge that everything is done by him ought to have more weight with us than reason alone. You do not need, therefore, to hear any new argument on this point; let God’s authority be set over against all reason from any source whatever.

We are not at liberty to say that of the actions of the divine will one is just and another unjust, because whatever you see is done by God, whatever you are sure is done by him, you must confess is more than just. So much can be said of God’s government and justice without further discussion and without uncertainty. I need not prove by arguments what is proved by his very words. When we read that God says he constantly sees all the earth, we have proof that he sees it, since he says so. When we read that he rules all creation, we have proof that he rules it, because he so affirms. When we read that he orders all things by his immediate judgment, his judgment is clearly proved by his own testimony. All other statements, made in human terms, need proofs and witnesses, whereas God’s speech is its own witness, since the words of perfect truth must be perfect testimony to the truth. Yet since our God willed that we should through the Sacred Scriptures know certain things, as if from the archives of his spirit and mind —-since the pronouncements of the Holy Scriptures are themselves in a way the mind of God —- I shall not conceal anything that God has wished his people to know and preach.

Alternative partial translation:
I shall not be silent on whatever God willed to be known and preached by His followers, since our God wished us to know certain things through the Scriptures, which are, as it were, from the recesses of His mind and spirit because, in a way, the very words of Holy Scripture are the mind of God.

Latin (for partial translation):
Sed tamen cum per Scripturas sacras scire nos quasi de arcano animi ac mentis suae quaedam voluerit Deus noster, quia ipsum quodammodo Scripturae sacrae oraculum Dei mens est; quidquid vel agnosci per suos vel praedicari Deus voluit, non tacebo.

Sancti Salviani Massiliensis Presbyteri De Gubernatione Dei, Liber Tertius, §1, PL 53:57B; translation in Eva M. Sanford, translator, Salvian: On the Government of God, Book III, Chapter 1 (Columbia University Press, 1930) pp. 77-79; alternative partial translation in FC, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, Book 3.1 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), p. 69.

In the preceding comments, Salvian speaks to the sufficiency of Scripture. His initial comments might sound like a mere assertion of the material sufficiency of Scripture, but the later comments make it clear that he believes that the form of Scripture is also sufficient, since the Scriptures speak clearly on these matters.

Salvian the Presbyter (5th century):

You who read these words are perhaps vexed and condemn what you read. I do not shrink from your censure; condemn me if I do not succeed in proving my words; condemn me if I do not show that the Sacred Scriptures also have said what I now claim.

Alternative translation:
Condemn me if I lie. Condemn me if I shall not bring proofs. Condemn me if I shall not demonstrate that the Sacred Scriptures have also said what I have asserted.

Condemna, si mentior; condemna, si non probavero; condemna, si id quod assero, non etiam Scripturas sacras dixisse monstravero.

Sancti Salviani Massiliensis Presbyteri De Gubernatione Dei, Liber Quartus, §13, PL 53:85B; translation in Eva M. Sanford, translator, Salvian: On the Government of God, Book IV, Chapter 13 (Columbia University Press, 1930) p. 121; alternative translation in FC, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, Book 4.13 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 113.

The preceding sentences don’t explicitly state the formal sufficiency of Scripture, but they flow from that view. If someone does not believe that the Scriptures are formally sufficient, why would they insist that they serve as the only measure? In other words, why could someone stand condemned simply because he cannot show that Scripture says what he says? The answer is that the Scriptures are for Salvian both materially and formally sufficient.

This brings us to a “bonus” section of the post. First, although he is not among the fathers of the first 5 centuries, we would like to provide this very beautiful comment from Fulgentius, who was born in the 5th century, but died in the 6th.

Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 467-532):

In which commandments, as in most rich viands, the spiritual abundance of heavenly dainties is so exuberant, that there is in the word of God plenty for the perfect to eat, and plenty also for the babe to suck. For there is both the milk of the suckling, whereby the tender infancy of the faithful may be nourished, and the solid food whereby the robust youth of the perfect may gain spiritual increase of holy vigour. There provision is made universally for the salvation of all whom the Lord designs to save. There we hear the precepts which we should perform: there we know the rewards we are to hope for. There is the command which teaches by the letter, and instructs us unto knowledge: there the promise which draws us by grace, and leads us to glory.

In quibus denuo mandatis, tanquam ditissimis ferculis, sic coelestium deliciarum copia spiritalis exuberat, ut in verbo Dei abundet quod perfectus comedat, abundet etiam quod parvulus sugat. Ibi est enim simul et lacteus potus, quo tenera fidelium nutriatur infantia, et solidus cibus, quo robusta perfectorum juventus spiritalia sanctae virtutis accipiat incrementa. Ibi prorsus ad salutem consulitur universis quos Dominus salvare dignatur; ibi est quod omni aetati congruat, ibi quod omni professioni conveniat; ibi audimus praecepta quae faciamus, ibi cognoscimus praemia quae speremus; ibi est jussio quae nos per litteram doceat et instruat ad scientiam; ibi promissio quae per gratiam trahat et perducat ad gloriam.

Sermo Primus, PL 65:721; translation in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: The University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 400.

Additionally, as promised, we would like to provide the testimony of two early Roman bishops.

Leo I (400- 401):

Not knowing, therefore, what he was bound to think concerning the incarnation of the Word of God, and not wishing to gain the light of knowledge by researches through the length and breadth of the Holy Scriptures, he might at least have listened attentively to that general and uniform confession, whereby the whole body of the faithful confess that they believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. By which three statements the devices of almost all heretics are overthrown. For not only is God believed to be both Almighty and the Father, but the Son is shown to be co-eternal with Him, differing in nothing from the Father because He is God from God, Almighty from Almighty, and being born from the Eternal one is co-eternal with Him; not later in point of time, not lower in power, not unlike in glory, not divided in essence: but at the same time the only begotten of the eternal Father was born eternal of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. And this nativity which took place in time took nothing from, and added nothing to that divine and eternal birth, but expended itself wholly on the restoration of man who had been deceived: in order that he might both vanquish death and overthrow by his strength, the Devil who possessed the power of death. For we should not now be able to overcome the author of sin and death unless He took our nature on Him and made it His own, whom neither sin could pollute nor death retain. Doubtless then, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit within the womb of His Virgin Mother, who brought Him forth without the loss of her virginity, even as she conceived Him without its loss.

But if he could not draw a rightful understanding (of the matter) from this pure source of the Christian belief, because he had darkened the brightness of the clear truth by a veil of blindness peculiar to himself, he might have submitted himself to the teaching of the Gospels. And when Matthew speaks of “the Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham Matthew 1:1,” he might have also sought out the instruction afforded by the statements of the Apostles. And reading in the Epistle to the Romans, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised before by His prophets in the Holy Scripture concerning His son, who was made unto Him of the seed of David after the flesh Romans 1:1-3,” he might have bestowed a loyal carefulness upon the pages of the prophets. And finding the promise of God who says to Abraham, “In your seed shall all nations be blest Genesis 12:3,” to avoid all doubt as to the reference of this seed, he might have followed the Apostle when He says, “To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He says not and to seeds, as if in many, but as it in one, and to your seed which is Christ [Galatians 3:16].” Isaiah’s prophecy also he might have grasped by a closer attention to what he says, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is interpreted “God with us. ” And the same prophet’s words he might have read faithfully. “A child is born to us, a Son is given to us, whose power is upon His shoulder, and they shall call His name the Angel of the Great Counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace, the Father of the age to come. ” And then he would not speak so erroneously as to say that the Word became flesh in such a way that Christ, born of the Virgin’s womb, had the form of man, but had not the reality of His mother’s body. Or is it possible that he thought our Lord Jesus Christ was not of our nature for this reason, that the angel, who was sent to the blessed Mary ever Virgin, says, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon you and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you: and therefore that Holy Thing also that shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God [Luke 1:35],” on the supposition that as the conception of the Virgin was a Divine act, the flesh of the conceived did not partake of the conceiver’s nature? But that birth so uniquely wondrous and so wondrously unique, is not to be understood in such wise that the properties of His kind were removed through the novelty of His creation. For though the Holy Spirit imparted fertility to the Virgin, yet a real body was received from her body; and, “Wisdom building her a house [Proverbs 9:1],” “the Word became flesh and dwelt in us [John 1:14],” that is, in that flesh which he took from man and which he quickened with the breath of a higher life.

Leo I of Rome (aka Leo the Great), Letter 28 (“The Tome”), Section 1

What’s particularly interesting about Leo’s comment is his layering of Scripture, Creed (taken from Scripture), and Scripture again. Leo is pointing out that the person should have just read the Bible, or listened to the Creed, but simpler even than that, he could just understand the truth from what Leo sees as the extremely clear statements of the Gospels and Apostolic writings.

Gregory the Great, who would have been too late for the fifth century collection, has similar ideas.

Gregory the Great (Gregory I c. 540-603):

For as the word of God, by the mysteries which it contains, exercises the understanding of the wise, so usually by what presents itself on the outside, it nurses the simpleminded. It presenteth in open day that wherewith the little ones may be fed; it keepeth in secret that whereby men of a loftier range may be held in suspense of admiration. It is, as it were, a kind of river, if I may so liken it, which is both shallow and deep, wherein both the Lamb may find a footing, and the elephant float at large.

Morals on the Book of Job by S. Gregory the Great: A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Vol. 1, Parts 1 & 2 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1844), Preface, p. 9.

Notice how Gregory’s comments more or less specifically state the same kind of principle of accommodation that we have seen so many times in the fathers, particularly the fathers of the fifth century.

(to be continued, Lord Willing, with discussion from various scholars)

Church Fathers on Jesus’ Status as "Without Mother"

May 22, 2010

Ambrose (A.D. 337 – 397) writes: “He it is Who is without mother according to His Godhead …” (On the Mysteries, Chapter 8, Section 4

Theodoret (A.D. 393 – 457) writes: “On account of this difference of term He is said by the divine Paul to be “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.” He is without father as touching His humanity; for as man He was born of a mother alone. And He is without mother as God, for He was begotten from everlasting of the Father alone. And again He is without descent as God while as man He has descent.” (Letter 151)

Gregory Nazianzen (A.D. 329 – 389) writes: “These names however are still common to Him Who is above us, and to Him Who came for our sake. But others are peculiarly our own, and belong to that nature which He assumed. So He is called Man, not only that through His Body He may be apprehended by embodied creatures, whereas otherwise this would be impossible because of His incomprehensible nature; but also that by Himself He may sanctify humanity, and be as it were a leaven to the whole lump; and by uniting to Himself that which was condemned may release it from all condemnation, becoming for all men all things that we are, except sin;-body, soul, mind and all through which death reaches-and thus He became Man, who is the combination of all these; God in visible form, because He retained that which is perceived by mind alone. He is Son of Man, both on account of Adam, and of the Virgin from Whom He came; from the one as a forefather, from the other as His Mother, both in accordance with the law of generation, and apart from it. He is Christ, because of His Godhead. For this is the Anointing of His Manhood, and does not, as is the case with all other Anointed Ones, sanctify by its action, but by the Presence in His Fullness of the Anointing One; the effect of which is that That which anoints is called Man, and makes that which is anointed God. He is The Way, because He leads us through Himself; The Door, as letting us in; the Shepherd, as making us dwell in a place of green pastures, and bringing us up by waters of rest, and leading us there, and protecting us from wild beasts, converting the erring, bringing back that which was lost, binding up that which was broken, guarding the strong, and bringing them together in the Fold beyond, with words of pastoral knowledge. The Sheep, as the Victim: The Lamb, as being perfect: the Highpriest, as the Offerer; Melchisedec, as without Mother in that Nature which is above us, and without Father in ours; and without genealogy above (for who, it says, shall declare His generation?) and moreover, as King of Salem, which means Peace, and King of Righteousness, and as receiving tithes from Patriarchs, when they prevail over powers of evil. They are the titles of the Son.” (Fourth Theological Oration (Oration 30), Section 21)

John Cassian (A.D. 360 – 435) writes: “For as He was begotten in His Divine nature “without mother,” so He is in the body “without father:” and so though He is neither without father nor without mother, we must believe in Him “without father and without mother.” For if you regard Him as He is begotten of the Father, He is without mother: if, as born of His mother, He is without father. And so in each of these births He has one: in both together He is without each: for the birth of Divinity had no need of mother, and for the birth of His body, He was Himself sufficient, without a father. Therefore says the Apostle “Without mother, without genealogy.”” (On the Incarnation, Book 7, Chapter 14)

Augustine (A.D. 354 – 430) writes: “For the Lord was said to be a Galilean, because His parents were from the city of Nazareth. I have said “His parents” in regard to Mary, not as regards the seed of man; for on earth He sought but a mother, He had already a Father on high. For His nativity on both sides was marvellous: divine without mother, human without father.” (Tractates on John, Tractate 33, Section 2)

And Augustine again writes: “And He goes on: “And no man has ascended into heaven, but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” Behold, He was here, and was also in heaven; was here in His flesh, in heaven by His divinity; yea, everywhere by His divinity. Born of a mother, not quitting the Father. Two nativities of Christ are understood: one divine, the other human: one, that by which we were to be made; the other, that by which we were to be made anew: both marvellous; that without mother, this without father.” (Tractates on John, Tractate 12, Section 8)



Augustine (354-430): At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate CXIX, §1, John 19:24-30.

Augustine (354-430): Why, then, said the Son to the mother, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come ?” Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, “That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross.” This, indeed, is the meaning of “Mine hour is not yet come.” For then it was that He recognized, who, in truth, always did know. He knew His mother in predestination, even before He was born of her; even before, as God, He created her of whom, as man, He was to be created, He knew her as His mother: but at a certain hour in a mystery He did not recognize her; and at a certain hour which had not yet come, again in a mystery, He does recognize her. For then did He recognize her, when that to which she gave birth was a-dying. That by which Mary was made did not die, but that which was made of Mary; not the eternity of the divine nature, but the weakness of the flesh, was dying. He made that answer therefore, making a distinction in the faith of believers, between the who; and the how, He came. For while He was God and the Lord of heaven and earth, He came by a mother who was a woman. In that He was Lord of the world, Lord of heaven and earth, He was, of course, the Lord of Mary also; but in that wherein it is said, “Made of a woman, made under the law,” He was Mary’s son. The same both the Lord of Mary and the son of Mary; the same both the Creator of Mary and created from Mary. Marvel not that He was both son and Lord. For just as He is called the son of Mary, so likewise is He called the son of David; and son of David because son of Mary. Hear the apostle openly declaring, “Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” Hear Him also declared the Lord of David; let David himself declare this: “ The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand. “ And this passage Jesus Himself brought forward to the Jews, and refuted them from it. How then was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee ?” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate VIII, §9, John 2:1-4.

Augustine (354-430): Each birth of his, you see, must be considered wonderful, both that of his divinity and that of his humanity. The first is from the Father without mother, the second from mother without father; the first apart from all time, the second at the acceptable time (2 Cor 6:2); the first eternal, the second at the right moment; the first without a body in the bosom of the Father (Jn 1:18), the second with a body, which did not violate the virginity of his mother; the first without either sex, the second without a man’s embrace. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 6, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 214.6 (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), p. 153.

Augustine (354-430): While hanging upon the cross, at the will and command of the Father, he also abandoned into the hands of men the human flesh which he assumed from the holy virgin, Mary, and commended his divinity into the hands of his Father, saying, Father, into your hands I commend my spirit (Lk 23:46). For Mary gave birth to the body which was destined to die, but the immortal God begot the immortal Son. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, The Arian Sermon §7, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 133.

Augustine (354-430): Because of his eternal birth scripture says, In the beginning was the Word. Look, I say that God the Son was born from God the Father apart from time. I have shown how he who is his Father is also his God on account of the human nature which he has assumed and in which he was born from the womb of his mother without intercourse with a human father. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Answer to Maximinus the Arian, Book 2, XVIII, 2, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 297.

Magisterium More Sufficient than Scripture? (Part 6)

February 8, 2010

[Cont’d from previous section]

Is the Roman Catholic Magisterium More Sufficient than Sacred Scripture?
Bryan Cross answered on the subject of the ability of the Scripture to interpret Scripture sufficiently, from Scripture, reason, and tradition.
(Part 6)

2 Peter 1:19-20

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Bryan also fails to recognize the perspicuity of Scripture:

Hilary of Poitiers (about A.D. 315-67):

In our reply we have followed Him to the moment of His glorious death, and taking one by one the statements of their unhallowed doctrine, we have refuted them from the teaching of the Gospels and the Apostle. But even after His glorious resurrection there are certain things which they have made bold to construe as proofs of the weakness of a lower nature, and to these we must now reply. Let us adopt once more our usual method of drawing out from the words themselves their true signification, that so we may discover the truth precisely where they think to overthrow it. For the Lord spoke in simple words for our instruction in the faith, and His words cannot need support or comment from foreign and irrelevant sayings.

– Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book XI, §7.

Hilary of Poitiers (about A.D. 315-67):

The Lord has not left in doubt or obscurity the teaching conveyed in this great mystery; He has not abandoned us to lose our way in dim uncertainty. Listen to Him as He reveals the full knowledge of this faith to His Apostles; — I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but through Me. If ye know Me, ye know My Father also; and from henceforth ye shall know Him, and have seen Him. Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and ye have not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? Dost thou not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth His works. Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works’ sake. He Who is the Way leads us not into by-paths or trackless wastes: He Who is the Truth mocks us not with lies; He Who is the Life betrays us not into delusions which are death. He Himself has chosen these winning names to indicate the methods which He has appointed for our salvation. As the Way, He will guide us to the Truth; the Truth will establish us in the Life. And therefore it is all-important for us to know what is the mysterious mode, which He reveals, of attaining this life. No man cometh to the Father but through Me. The way to the Father is through the Son. And now we must enquire whether this is to be by a course of obedience to His teaching, or by faith in His Godhead. For it is conceivable that our way to the Father may be through adherence to the Son’s teaching, rather than through believing that the Godhead of the Father dwells in the Son. And therefore let us, in the next place, seek out the true meaning of the instruction given us here. For it is not by cleaving to a preconceived opinion, but by studying the force of the words, that we shall enter into possession of this faith.

– Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book VII, §33.

Hilary of Poitiers (about A.D. 315-67):

Now we ought to recognize first of all that God has spoken not for Himself but for us, and that He has so far tempered the language of His utterance as to enable the weakness of our nature to grasp and understand it.

– Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book VIII, §43.

Hilary of Poitiers (about A.D. 315-67):

The Lord enunciated the faith of the Gospel in the simplest words that could be found, and fitted His discourses to our understanding, so far as the weakness of our nature allowed Him, without saying anything unworthy of the majesty of His own nature.

– Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book IX, §40.

Hilary of Poitiers (about A.D. 315-67) commenting on John 10:30:

But this passage concerning the unity, of which we are speaking, does not allow us to look for the meaning outside the plain sound of the words. If Father and Son are one, in the sense that They are one in will, and if separable natures cannot be one in will, because their diversity of kind and nature must draw them into diversities of will and judgment, how call They be one in will. not being one in knowledge? There can be no unity of will between ignorance and knowledge. Omniscience and nescience are opposites, and opposites cannot be of the same will.

– Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book IX, §70.

The perspicuity of Scripture, however, does not mean that everything in Scripture is clear. The necessary things for salvation are clear in Scripture, but there is much additional in Scripture for which our attention and study is both necessary and commended.

Paschasius of Dumium (6th century A.D.):

Some brothers went to Abbot Antony and asked to hear from him words by which they might be saved. He said to them: “You have heard the Scriptures, and you know what is sufficient to you from Christ.”

– Paschasius of Dumium, FC, Vol. 62, Paschasius of Dumium, Questions and Answers of the Greek Fathers, Chapter 6, §2 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1969), p. 127.

Augustine (about A.D. 354-430):

I begin, therefore, by requesting you to lay aside the opinion which you have too easily formed concerning me, and dismiss those sentiments, though they are gratifying evidences of your goodwill, and believe my testimony rather than any other’s regarding myself, if you reciprocate my affection. For such is the depth of the Christian Scriptures, that even if I were attempting to study them and nothing else from early boyhood to decrepit old age, with the utmost leisure, the most unwearied zeal, and talents greater than I have, I would be still daily making progress in discovering their treasures; not that there is so great difficulty in coming through them to know the things necessary to salvation, but when any one has accepted these truths with the faith that is indispensable as the foundation of a life of piety and uprightness, so many things which are veiled under manifold shadows of mystery remain to be inquired into by those who are advancing in the study, and so great is the depth of wisdom not only in the words in which these have been expressed, but also in the things themselves, that the experience of the oldest, the ablest, and the most zealous students of Scripture illustrates what Scripture itself has said: “When a man hath done, then he beginneth.”

– Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 137, Chapter 1, §3.

Augustine (about A.D. 354-430):

Consider, moreover, the style in which Sacred Scripture is composed,—how accessible it is to all men, though its deeper mysteries are penetrable to very few. The plain truths which it contains it declares in the artless language of familiar friendship to the hearts both of the unlearned and of the learned; but even the truths which it veils in symbols it does not set forth in stiff and stately sentences, which a mind somewhat sluggish and uneducated might shrink from approaching, as a poor man shrinks from the presence of the rich; but, by the condescension of its style, it invites all not only to be fed with the truth which is plain, but also to be exercised by the truth which is concealed, having both in its simple and in its obscure portions the same truth. Lest what is easily understood should beget satiety in the reader, the same truth being in another place more obscurely expressed becomes again desired, and, being desired, is somehow invested with a new attractiveness, and thus is received with pleasure into the heart. By these means wayward minds are corrected, weak minds are nourished, and strong minds are filled with pleasure, in such a way as is profitable to all. This doctrine has no enemy but the man who, being in error, is ignorant of its incomparable usefulness, or, being spiritually diseased, is averse to its healing power.

– Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 137, Chapter 5, §18. See also FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, 137. Addressed to Volusian (412 AD) (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 34.

Bryan also forgets that the words of our Lord are able to speak for themselves, without needing external support:

Hilary of Poitiers (about A.D. 315-67):

In our reply we have followed Him to the moment of His glorious death, and taking one by one the statements of their unhallowed doctrine, we have refuted them from the teaching of the Gospels and the Apostle. But even after His glorious resurrection there are certain things which they have made bold to construe as proofs of the weakness of a lower nature, and to these we must now reply. Let us adopt once more our usual method of drawing out from the words themselves their true signification, that so we may discover the truth precisely where they think to overthrow it. For the Lord spoke in simple words for our instruction in the faith, and His words cannot need support or comment from foreign and irrelevant sayings.

– Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book XI, §7.

Chrysostom (about A.D. 349-407):

Verse 11. “For we which live are also delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in us in our mortal flesh.” For every where when he has said any thing obscure, he interprets himself again. So he has done here also, giving a clear interpretation of this which I have cited. ‘For therefore, “we are delivered,”’ he says, ‘in other words, we bear about His dying that the power of His life may be made manifest, who permitteth not mortal flesh, though undergoing so great sufferings, to be overcome by the snowstorm of these calamities.’ And it may be taken too in another way. How? As he says in another place, “If we die with him, we shall also live with Him.” (2 Timothy 2:11.) ‘For as we endure His dying now, and choose whilst living to die for His sake: so also will he choose, when we are dead, to beget us then unto life. For if we from life come into death, He also will from death lead us by the hand into life.’

– Chrysostom, NPNF1: Vol. XII, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 9.

Ambrose (about A.D. 339-397):

In most places Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser.

Latin text:

In plerisque ita se ipse suis exponat sermonibus, ut is qui tractat, nihil inveniat quod adjiciat suum; ac si velit aliquid dicere, grammatici magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere.

Citation: Ambrose, Epistola XXXVII.1, PL 16:1084; translation by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, 3 Volumes (London: John Henry Jackson, publisher, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 262; see also Chemnitz, Vol. 1, p. 167, and Whitaker, pp. 398, 492, who all render plerisque as “most.” The translation found in FC, Vol. 26, Saint Ambrose: Letters 54. Ambrose to Simplicianus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954), p. 286, has mistranslated this word plerisque to read “in some instances” rather than the correct translation of “most places.”

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (about A.D. 393-466):

Eran. — We have gone through many and sound arguments, but I was anxious to know the force of the Gospel saying.
Orth. — You stand in need of no interpretation from without. The evangelist himself interprets himself. For after saying “the Word was made flesh,” he goes on “and dwelt among us.” That is to say by dwelling in us, and using the flesh taken from us as a kind of temple, He is said to have been made flesh, and, teaching that He remained unchanged, the evangelist adds “and we beheld His glory — the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” For though clad with flesh He exhibited His Father’s nobility, shot forth the beams of the Godhead, and emitted the radiance of the power of the Lord, revealing by His works of wonder His hidden nature. A similar illustration is afforded by the words of the divine apostle to the Philippians: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man he humbled Himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the cross.”

– Theodoret of Cyrrhus, NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue I.—The Immutable.Orthodoxos and Eranistes.

Indeed, the words of Scripture are best suited to explain Scripture:

Hilary of Poitiers (about A.D. 315-67):

The worldly man cannot receive the faith of the Apostle, nor can any language but that of the Apostle explain his meaning. God raised Christ from the dead; Christ in Whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. But He quickened us also together with Him, forgiving us our sins, blotting out the bond of the law of sin, which through the ordinances made aforetime was against us, taking it out of the way, and fixing it to His cross, stripping Himself of His flesh by the law of death, holding up the powers to shew, and triumphing over them in Himself.

– Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book IX, §10.

Chrysostom (about A.D. 349-407):

Mark how he disapproves of questioning. For where faith exists, there is no need of question. Where there is no room for curiosity, questions are superfluous. Questioning is the subversion of faith. For he that seeks has not yet found. He who questions cannot believe. Therefore it is his advice that we should not be occupied with questions, since if we question, it is not faith; for faith sets reasoning at rest. But why then does Christ say, “Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you” (Matt. vii. 7); and, “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life”? (John v. 39.) The seeking there is meant of prayer and vehement desire, and He bids “search the Scriptures,” not to introduce the labors of questioning, but to end them, that we may ascertain and settle their true meaning, not that we may be ever questioning, but that we may have done with it.

– Chrysostom, NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Homily 1.

Chrysostom (about A.D. 349-407):

You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and farfetched philosophy, even to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text, and thinking that what is said on the question of things on earth has to do with things in heaven. And, if blessed Moses had not used such simplicity of expression and considerateness, the Holy Spirit directing his tongue, where would we not have come to grief? Sacred Scripture, though, whenever it wants to teach us something like this, gives its own interpretation, and doesn’t let the listener go astray. . . . So, I beg you, block your ears against all distractions of that kind, and let us follow the norm of Sacred Scripture.

– Chrysostom, FC, Vol. 74, Homilies on Genesis 1-17, 13.13 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), p. 175.

The Scripture even explains the allegorical parts of Scripture:

Chrysostom (about A.D. 349-407):

There is something else we can learn here. What sort of thing is it? It is when it is necessary to allegorize Scripture. We ourselves are not the lords over the rules of interpretation, but must pursue Scripture’s understanding of itself, and in that way make use of the allegorical method. What I mean is this. The Scripture has just now spoken of a vineyard, wall, and wine-vat. The reader is not permitted to become lord of the passage and apply the words to whatever events or people he chooses. The Scripture interprets itself with the words, “And the house of Israel is the vineyard of the Lord Sabaoth.” To give another example, Ezekiel describes a large, great-winged eagle which enters Lebanon and takes off the top of a cedar. The interpretation of the allegory does not lie in the whim of the readers, but Ezekiel himself speaks, and tells first what the eagle is and then what the cedar is. To take another example from Isaiah himself, when he raises a mighty river against Judah, he does not leave it to the imagination of the reader to apply it to whatever person he chooses, but he names the king whom he has referred to as a river. This is everywhere a rule in Scripture: when it wants to allegorize, it tells the interpretation of the allegory, so that the passage will not be interpreted superficially or be met by the undisciplined desire of those who enjoy allegorization to wander about and be carried in every direction. Why are you surprised that the prophets should observe this rule? Even the author of Proverbs does this. For he said, “Let your loving doe and graceful filly accompany you, and let your spring of water be for you alone.” Then he interprets these terms to refer to one’s free and lawful wife; he rejects the grasp of the prostitute and other woman.

– Chrysostom, Duane A. Garrett, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah 1-8 with an English Translation, Isaiah Chapter 5 (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), pp. 110-111.

Chrysostom (about A.D. 349-407): Commenting on Isaiah 8:6-7:

Do you see how flawlessly the passage shines before us? For Scripture everywhere gives the interpretation of its metaphors, just as it has done here. Having spoken of a river, it did not stick to the metaphor, but told us what it means by river: “The king of Assyria, and all his glory.”

– Chrysostom, Duane A. Garrett, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah 1-8 with an English Translation, Isaiah Chapter 8 (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), pp. 161.

And the obscure portions have a reason in themselves, not to hide an important doctrine, but to stimulate our spiritual appetite, increase our humility, or give us spiritual exercise and excitement.

Augustine (about A.D. 354-430):

Accordingly the Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and care for our welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language elsewhere.

– Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 6, §8.

Augustine (about A.D. 354-430):

Here by that rule I would wish to take “the sons of men” of those that from old men have been regenerated by faith. For these, by certain obscure passages of Scripture, as it were the closed eyes of God, are exercised that they may seek: and again, by certain clear passages, as it were the open eyes of God, are enlightened that they may rejoice. And this frequent closing and opening in the holy Books are as it were the eyelids of God; which question, that is, which try the “sons of men;” who are neither wearied with the obscurity of the matter, but exercised; nor puffed up by knowledge, but confirmed.

– Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 11, §8.

Augustine (about A.D. 354-430):

The depths of meaning in the word of God are there to excite our eagerness to study, not to prevent us from understanding. If everything was locked up in riddles, there would be no clue to the opening up of obscure passages.

– Augustine, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 5, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons, Sermon 156.1 (Brooklyn: New City Press, 1992), p. 96.

Augustine (about A.D. 354-430):

Our thoughts, my dearest brothers and sisters, in reflecting on and discussing the holy scriptures must be guided by the indisputable authority of the same scriptures, so that we may deal faithfully both with what is said clearly for the purpose of giving us spiritual nourishment, and what is said obscurely in order to give us spiritual exercise. Who, after all, would dare to expound the divine mysteries otherwise than has been practiced and prescribed by the mind and mouth of an apostle?

– Augustine, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 10, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons, Sermon 363.1 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), p. 270. (414 AD.).

Thus, Scripture can teach us all that is worth knowing.

Augustine (about A.D. 354-430):

Love to read the sacred Letters, and you will not find many things to ask of me. By reading and meditating, if you pray wholeheartedly to God, the Giver of all good things, you will learn all that is worth knowing, or at least you will learn more under His inspiration than through the instruction of any man.

– Augustine, FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, 140. Addressed to Honoratus (412 AD), Chapter 37 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), pp. 135-136. Honoratus was a catechumen.

And thoroughly equip us:

Caesarius of Arles (about A.D. 470-543):

When the Gospel was read, we heard that word which is at the same time both terrible and desirable, the sentence of our Lord which is equally dreadful and desirable. It is terrible because of what He says: ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire’; it is desirable because of the words: ‘Come, blessed, receive the kingdom.’ . . . For if a man carefully heeds this lesson, even if he cannot read the rest of the Scriptures, this lesson alone can suffice for him to perform every good act and to avoid all evil.

– Caesarius of Arles, FC, Vol. 47, Saint Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 187-238, Sermon 158.1 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1963), p. 359.

Ambrose (about A.D. 339-97):

Frequent reading of the Scriptures, therefore, strengthens the mind and ripens it by the warmth of spiritual grace. In this way our powers of reasoning are strengthened and the influence of our irrational passions brought to naught.

– Ambrose, FC, Vol. 42, Saint Ambrose: Cain and Abel, Book 2, chapter 6, §20 (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1961), p. 421.

[cont’d in Section 7]

Magisterium More Sufficient than Scripture? (Part 5)

February 1, 2010

[Cont’d from previous section]

Is the Roman Catholic Magisterium More Sufficient than Sacred Scripture?
Bryan Cross answered on the subject of the ability of the Scripture to interpret Scripture sufficiently, from Scripture, reason, and tradition.
(Part 5)

Continuing to analyze the problem with Bryan’s argument, we might characterize the problem as Bryan wanting to get a level of knowledge that goes beyond the divinely set limits – have knowledge of things about which Scripture is silent. Scripture explains: Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Judges 13:18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret? Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Revelation 10:4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

The fathers also understood this.

Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 150 – 215):

Who can read the Phaedo, and think of Plato and Socrates, without hope that the mystery of redemption applies to them in some effectual way, under St. Paul’s maxims (Romans 2:26)? It would torture me in reading such sayings as are quoted here, were I not able reverently to indulge such hope, and then to desist from speculation. Cannot we be silent where Scripture is silent, and leave all to Him who loved the Gentiles, and died for them on the cross?

– Clement of Alexandria, ANF: Vol. II, Book IV, Elucidations.

Basil of Caesarea (about A.D. 329-379):

I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel.” Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the form of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.

– Basil of Caesarea, NPNF2: Vol. VIII, Hexaemeron, Homily 9, The Creation of Terrestrial Animals, §1.

Hilary of Poitiers (about A.D. 315-67):

Such is their error, such their pestilent teaching; to support it they borrow the words of Scripture, perverting its meaning and using the ignorance of men as their opportunity of gaining credence for their lies. Yet it is certainly by these same words of God that we must come to understand the things of God. For human feebleness cannot by any strength of its own attain to the knowledge of heavenly things; the faculties which deal with bodily matters can form no notion of the unseen world. Neither our created bodily substance, nor the reason given by God for the purposes of ordinary life, is capable of ascertaining and pronouncing upon the nature and work of God. Our wits cannot rise to the level of heavenly knowledge, our powers of perception lack the strength to apprehend that limitless might. We must believe God’s word concerning Himself, and humbly accept such insight as He vouchsafes to give. We must make our choice between rejecting His witness, as the heathen do, or else believing in Him as He is, and this in the only possible way, by thinking of Him in the aspect in which He presents Himself to us. Therefore let private judgment cease; let human reason refrain from passing barriers divinely set. In this spirit we eschew all blasphemous and reckless assertion concerning God, and cleave to the very letter of revelation. Each point in our enquiry shall be considered in the light of His instruction, Who is our theme; there shall be no stringing together of isolated phrases whose context is suppressed, to trick and misinform the unpracticed listener. The meaning of words shall be ascertained by considering the circumstances under which they were spoken words must be explained by circumstances not circumstances forced into conformity will words. We, at any rate, will treat our subject completely; we will state both the circumstances under which words were spoken, and the true purport of the words. Each point shall be considered in orderly sequence.

– Hilary of Poitiers, NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book IV, §14.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (about A.D. 393-466):

Eran.—In these points you seem to say sooth, but after its assumption into heaven I do not think that you will deny that it was changed into the nature of Godhead.
Orth.—I would not so say persuaded only by human arguments, for I am not so rash as to say anything concerning which divine Scripture is silent.

– Theodoret, NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue II.—The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (about A.D. 393-466):

I do not say these things definitively. For I consider it presumptuous to speak definitively of things concerning which the divine Scripture does not speak distinctly. But I have said what I conceived was suitable to the views of piety.

[alternative translation of the above]

Now, I do not state this dogmatically, my view being that it is rash to speak dogmatically where holy Scripture does not make an explicit statement; rather, I have stated what I consider to be consistent with orthodox thought.

Greek text:

Ἐγὼ δὲ ταῦτα οὐκ ἀποφαινόμενος λέγω· τολμηρὸν γὰρ ἀποφαντικῶς οἶμαι λέγειν, περὶ ὧν ἡ θεία διαῤῥήδην οὐ λέγει γραφή· ἀλλʼ ὅπερ τοῖς εὐσεβέσι λογισμοῖς ἁρμόττειν ὑπέλαβον, εἴρηκα.

Citation: Quaestiones in Genesim, Interrogatio IV, PG 80:84; translation from William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. III, p. 191; alternate translation from Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: The Questions on the Octateuch, Volume 1, Questions on Genesis, IV (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007) p. 19.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (about A.D. 393-466):

It does not become us to search after those things which are passed over in silence; but it behoves us to love those things which are written.

[alternative translation of the above]

We should not pry into secrets but be grateful for what is written.

Greek Text:

Οὐ δεῖ ζητεῖν τὰ σεσιγημένα· στέργειν δὲ προσήκει τὰ γεγραμμένα.

Citation: Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Quaestiones in Genesim, Interrogatio XLV, PG 80:145.; translated by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, pp. 191-192; alternative translation by Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: The Questions on the Octateuch, Volume 1, Questions on Genesis, Interrogatio XLV (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007) p. 95.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (about A.D. 393-466):

It is superfluous and unprofitable to inquire after those things which are passed over in silence.

[alternative translation of the above]

It is pointless and foolish to inquire into unspoken secrets.

Greek text:

Περιττὸν καὶ ἀνόητον τὸ τὰ σεσιγημένα ζητεῖν.

Citation: Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Quaestiones in Exodum, Interrogatio XXVI, PG 80:256; translation by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 192; alternative translation by Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: The Questions on the Octateuch, Volume 1, Questions on Exodus, XXVI (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007) p. 271.

Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch from about A.D. 412-444):

That which the divine Scripture has not spoken, how shall we receive it, and reckon it among verities?

Greek text:

Ὃ γὰρ οὐκ εἴρηκεν ἡ θεία Γραφὴ, τίνα δὴ τρόπον παραδεξόμεθα, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀληθῶς ἔχουσι καταλογιούμεθα;

Citation: Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyrorum In Genesim, Liber II, PG 69:53; translation by William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., 3 Vols. (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 181.

Prosper of Aquitaine (died about A.D. 463) writing around A.D. 450:

Who will tell the reasons and motives of these differences within one and the same grace when Sacred Scripture is silent about them?

– Prosper of Aquitaine, ACW, Vol. 14, P. De Letter, S.J., PH.D., S.T.D., trans., St. Prosper of Aquitaine: The Call of All Nations, Book 2, Chapter 9 (New York: Newman Press, 1952), p. 103.

Caesarius of Arles (about A.D. 470-543):

Sacred Scripture speaks about the godhead and divinity of the Holy Spirit, but does not say whether He should be called begotten or unbegotten. See what confusion a lack of faith creates. You do not want to know what God did not want to be unknown, and you want to know what He did not decree should be asked. . . .
You ask whether He [i.e. the Holy Spirit] was begotten or not. Sacred Scripture has said nothing about this, and it is wrong to violate the divine silence. Since God did not think that this should be indicated in His writings, He did not want you to question or to know through idle curiosity.

– Caesarius of Arles, FC, Vol. 66, Sermons 187-238, Sermon 213.1-2 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University Press, 1973), pp. 106, 107.

Gregory of Nyssa (about A.D. 335-395):

Since, my friend, you ask me a question in your letter, I think that it is incumbent upon me to answer you in their proper order upon all the points connected with it. It is, then, my opinion that it is a good thing for those who have dedicated themselves once for all to the higher life to fix their attention continually upon the utterances in the Gospel, and, just as those who correct their work in any given material by a rule, and by means of the straightness of that rule bring the crookedness which their hands detect to straightness, so it is right that we should apply to these questions a strict and flawless measure as it were, — I mean, of course, the Gospel rule of life, — and in accordance with that, direct ourselves in the sight of God. Now there are some amongst those who have entered upon the monastic and hermit life, who have made it a part of their devotion to behold those spots at Jerusalem where the memorials of our Lord’s life in the flesh are on view; it would be well, then, to look to this Rule, and if the finger of its precepts points to the observance of such things, to perform the work, as the actual injunction of our Lord; but if they lie quite outside the commandment of the Master, I do not see what there is to command any one who has become a law of duty to himself to be zealous in performing any of them.

– Gregory of Nyssa, NPNF2: Vol. V, On Ascetic and Moral Treatises, On Pilgrimages.

Augustine (about A.D. 354-430):

Well, then, let us grant that it is so, that many can now bear those things when the Holy Spirit has been sent, which could not then, prior to His coming, be born by the disciples: do we on that account know what it is that He would not say, as we should know it were we reading or hearing it as uttered by Himself? For it is one thing to know whether we or you could bear it; but quite another to know what it is, whether able to be born or not. But when He Himself was silent about such things, which of us could say, It is this or that? Or if he venture to say it, how will he prove it? For who could manifest such vanity or recklessness as when saying what he pleased to whom he pleased, even though true, to affirm without any divine authority that it was the very thing which the Lord on that occasion refused to utter? Which of us could do such a thing without incurring the severest charge of rashness, — a thing which gets no countenance from prophetic or apostolic authority? For surely if we had read any such thing in the books confirmed by canonical authority, which were written after our Lord’s ascension, it would not have been enough to have read such a statement, had we not also read in the same place that this was actually one of those things which the Lord was then unwilling to tell His disciples, because they were unable to bear them. As if, for example, I were to say that the words which we read at the opening of this Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God:” and those which follow, because they were written afterwards, and yet without any mention of their being uttered by the Lord Jesus when He was here in the flesh, but were written by one of His apostles, to whom they were revealed by His Spirit, were some of those which the Lord would not then utter, because the disciples were unable to bear them; who would listen to me in making so rash a statement? But if in the same passage where we read the one we were also to read the other, who would not give due credence to such an apostle?
3. But it seems to me also very absurd to say that the disciples could not then have born what we find recorded, about things invisible and of profoundest import, in the apostolic epistles, which were written in after days, and of which there is no mention that the Lord uttered them when His visible presence was with them. For why could they not bear then what is now read in their books, land born by every one, even though not understood? Some things there are, indeed, in the Holy Scriptures which unbelieving men both have no understanding of when they read or hear them, and cannot bear when they are read or heard: as the pagans, that the world was made by Him who was crucified; as the Jews, that He could be the Son of God, who broke up their mode of observing the Sabbath; as the Sabellians, that the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit are a Trinity; as the Arians, that the Son is equal to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son; as the Photinians, that Christ is not only man like ourselves, but God also, equal to God the Father; as the Manicheans, that Christ Jesus, by whom we must be saved, condescended to be born in the flesh and of the flesh of man: and all others of divers perverse sects, who can by no means bear whatever is found in the Holy Scriptures and in the Catholic faith that stands out in opposition to their errors, just as we cannot bear their sacrilegious vaporings and mendacious insanities. For what else is it not to be able to bear, but not to retain in our minds with calmness and composure? But what of all that has been written since our Lord’s ascension with canonical truth and authority, is it not read and heard with equanimity by every believer, and catechumen also, before in his baptism he receive the Holy Spirit, even although it is not yet understood as it ought to be?

– Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 96, John 16:12, 13.

[cont’d in section 6]

The Jews Gave Us the Old Testament

January 14, 2010

Of course, God gave us the Old Testament by inspiration, but the point is that the apostles did not give us the Old Testament. Instead, it was an existing body of literature that was handed on to them. We see this in Scripture.

Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them [that is, to the Jews] were committed the oracles of God.

And, of course, we also see this reflected in the writings of the church fathers.

Chrysostom (about A.D. 349-407):

Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ.

Greek text:

Ὅλως δὲ εἰ θαυμάζεις τὰ ἐκείνων, τίς σοι κοινὸς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐστι λόγος; Εἰ γὰρ σεμνὰ καὶ μεγάλα τὰ Ἰουδαίων, ψευδῆ τὰ ἡμέτερα· εἰ δὲ ταῦτα ἀληθῆ, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ ἀληθῆ, ἐκεῖνα ἀπάτης γέμει. Οὐχὶ τὰς Γραφὰς λέγω· μὴ γένοιτο. ἐκεῖναι γάρ με πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν ἐχειραγώγησαν·

Citation: Chrysotom, Against the Jews (Adversus Judaeos), PG 48:852; translation in FC, Vol. 68, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, Disc. 1.6.5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1979), pp. 23-24.

Justin Martyr (wrote after A.D. 151):

But if any of those who are wont to be forward in contradiction should say that these books do not belong to us, but to the Jews, and should assert that we in vain profess to have learnt our religion froth them, let him know, as he may from those very things which are written in these books, that not to them, but to us, does the doctrine of them refer. That the books relating to our religion are to this day preserved among the Jews, has been a work of Divine Providence on our behalf; for lest, by producing them out of the Church, we should give occasion to those who wish to slander us to charge us with fraud, we demand that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, that from the very books still preserved among them it might clearly and evidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men for instruction pertain to us.

– Justin Martyr, ANF: Vol. 1, Justin’s Hortatory Address to the Greeks, Chapter 38 – Concluding Appeal.

Chrysostom (about A.D. 349-407):

At the beginning, then, God communicates directly with human beings as far as it is possible for human beings to hear. This is the way He came to Adam, this is the way He rebuked Cain, this is the way He was entertained by Abraham. But since our nature took a turn for evil, and separated itself by a lengthy exile, as it were, at long last He sent us letters as though we were absent for a long time and He intended to reestablish the former friendship through an epistle. While it was God who sent the letters, it was Moses who brought them.

– Chrysostom, Robert Charles Hill, trans., St. John Chrysostom, Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis (Boston: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2004) Sermon 1, p. 26.

Augustine (about A.D. 354-430):

But the Jews survive still, and for a special purpose: so that they may carry our books, to their own confusion. When we want to prove to the pagans that Christ’s coming was prophesied, we produce these scriptures. But possibly pagans obstinately opposed to the faith might have alleged that we Christians had composed them, fabricating prophecies to buttress the gospel we preach. They might have thought that we were trying to pass off our message by pretending that it had been foreshadowed in prophecy. But we can convince them of their error by pointing out that all those scriptures which long ago spoke of Christ are the property of the Jews. Yes, the Jews recognize these very writings. We take books from our enemies to confute other enemies! In what sort of disgrace do the Jews find themselves? A Jew carries the book which is the foundation of faith for a Christian. Jews act as book-bearers for us, like the slaves who are accustomed to walk behind their masters carrying their books, so that while the slaves sink under the weight, the masters make great strides through reading.

– Augustine, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 17, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms, Psalms 51-72, Psalm 56.9 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2001), p. 110.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (about A.D. 393-466) commenting on Ezekiel 37:28:

In fact, through those of the Jews who came to faith the nations also received the light of the knowledge of God: the divine apostles and the first disciples of the apostles were from among the ranks of Jews, and the nations came to faith in the divine message by learning the truths about Christ our savior from the inspired books preserved by Jews. Hence the divine apostle also said that the believers from the nations are grafted into the pious root of the Jews, while the unbelievers from Jews are broken off and separated from this root.

– Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentaries on the Prophets, Vol. Two, Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), preface, p. 251.

Origen (about A.D. 185–254):

Where you get your “lost and won at play, and thrown out unburied on the streets,” I know not, unless it is from Tobias; and Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves.

– Origen, Letter to Africanus, Section 13

Augustine (about A.D. 354-430):

The examples I have adduced are indeed by no means doubtful in their signification, because only plain instances ought to be used as examples. There are passages, however, in regard to which it is uncertain in what sense they ought to be taken, as for example, “In the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and the wine is red: it is full of mixture.” Now it is uncertain whether this denotes the wrath of God, but not to the last extremity of punishment, that is, “to the very dregs;” or whether it denotes the grace of the Scriptures passing away from the Jews and coming to the Gentiles, because “He has put down one and set up another,”— certain observances, however, which they understand in a carnal manner, still remaining among the Jews, for “the dregs hereof is not yet wrung out.”

– Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 25, Section 36


Arianism is Consistent with Scripture?

January 2, 2010

Phoebadius (d. @ 392): Knowing, therefore, this unity of substance in the Father and in the Son, on the authority, not only of the prophets, but also of the gospels, how canst thou say that the Homoüsion is not found in scripture? Latin text: Cum ergo hanc unitatem substantiae in Patre et Filio non solum prophetica, sed et evangelica auctoritate cognoscas; quomodo dicis in Scripturis divinis ὁμοιούσιον non inveniri? S. Phoebadius, De Fide Orthodoxa, Contra Arianos, Alias De Filii Divinitate et Consubstantialitate, Tractatus, Caput V, PL 20:41.

Sometimes the opponents of sola scriptura end up taking their position to absurd lengths. Consider the following statement from Roman Catholic Bryan Cross:

The term ‘refute’ means “shown an argument to be unsound”. The bishops did not ‘refute’ Arianism; they condemned it, by defining the Faith by way of an extra-biblical term: homoousious. They were unable, by Scripture alone, to refute Arianism. The Arians could affirm every single verse of Scripture. That’s precisely why the bishops had to require affirmation of the term homoousious. So if the bishops had no authority by way of apostolic succession, then their requirement of affirming homoousious would have had no more authority than its denial by the Arians. Scripture alone was insufficient to resolve the dispute, precisely because both sides could affirm every verse in Scripture. And since sola scriptura denies the transfer of authority by way of apostolic succession, therefore the Council of Nicea and the Creed, given sola scriptura, only have authority if you agree with its interpretation of Scripture.

Mr. Cross’ zeal for his church has placed him out of touch with history. The fathers themselves believed that they refuted Arianism from Scripture:

If then, as you say, ‘the Son is from nothing,’ and ‘was not before His generation,’ He, of course, as well as others, must be called Son andGod and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other creatures consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of what He is partaker. All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is participated, what is it or whence? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious, when the Father says, ‘This is My Beloved Son Matthew 3:17,’ and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father. And as to this again, if it be other than the essence of the Son, an equal extravagance will meet us; there being in that case something between this that is from the Father and the essence of the Son, whatever that be.

This is of itself a sufficient refutation of the Arian heresy; however, its heterodoxy will appear also from the following:— If God be Maker and Creator, and create His works through the Son, and we cannot regard things which come to be, except as being through the Word, is it not blasphemous, God being Maker, to say, that His Framing Word and His Wisdom once was not? It is the same as saying, that God is not Maker, if He had not His proper Framing Word which is from Him, but that that by which He frames, accrues to Him from without , and is alien from Him, and unlike in essence.

– Athanasius, Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Sections 15 and 17

And again:

24. But He had not been thus worshipped, nor been thus spoken of, were He a creature merely. But now since He is not a creature, but the proper offspring of the Essence of that God who is worshipped, and His Son by nature, therefore He is worshipped and is believed to be God, and is Lord of armies, and in authority, and Almighty, as the Father is; for He has said Himself, ‘All things that the Father has, are Mine [John 16:15].’ For it is proper to the Son, to have the things of the Father, and to be such that the Father is seen in Him, and that through Him all things were made, and that the salvation of all comes to pass and consists in Him. And here it were well to ask them also this question , for a still clearer refutation of their heresy—Wherefore, when all things are creatures, and all are brought into consistence from nothing, and the Son Himself, according to you, is creature and work, and once was not, wherefore has He made ‘all things through Him’ alone, ‘and without Him was made not one thing [John 1:3]?’ or why is it, when ‘all things’ are spoken of, that no one thinks the Son is signified in the number, but only things originate; whereas when Scripture speaks of the Word, it does not understand Him as being in the number of ‘all,’ but places Him with the Father, as Him in whom Providence and salvation for ‘all’ are wrought and effected by the Father, though all things surely might at the same command have come to be, at which He was brought into being by God alone? For God is not wearied by commanding, nor is His strength unequal to the making of all things, that He should alone create the only Son, and need His ministry and aid for the framing of the rest. For He lets nothing stand over, which He wills to be done; but He willed only, and all things subsisted, and no one ‘has resisted His will [Romans 9:19].’ Why then were not all things brought into being by God alone at that same command, at which the Son came into being? Or let them tell us, why did all things through Him come to be, who was Himself but originate? How void of reason! However, they say concerning Him, that ‘God willing to create originate nature, when He saw that it could not endure the untempered hand of the Father, and to be created by Him, makes and creates first and alone one only, and calls Him Son and Word, that, through Him as a medium, all things might thereupon be brought to be.’ This they not only have said, but they have dared to put it into writing, namely, Eusebius, Arius, and Asterius who sacrificed.

25. Is not this a full proof of that irreligion, with which they have drugged themselves with much madness, till they blush not to be intoxicate against the truth? For if they shall assign the toil of making all things as the reason why God made the Son only, the whole creation will cry out against them as saying unworthy things of God; and Isaiah too who has said in Scripture, ‘The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, faints not, neither is weary: there is no searching of His understanding [Isaiah 40:28].’ And if God made the Son alone, as not deigning to make the rest, but committed them to the Son as an assistant, this on the other hand is unworthy of God, for in Him there is no pride. Nay the Lord reproves the thought, when He says, ‘Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?’ and ‘one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father which is in heaven.’ And again, ‘Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat, nor yet for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet yourheavenly Father feeds them; are you not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought, can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the field which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?’ If then it be not unworthy of God to exercise His Providence, even down to things so small, a hair of the head, and a sparrow, and the grass of the field, also it was not unworthy of Him to make them. For what things are the subjects of HisProvidence, of those He is Maker through His proper Word. Nay a worse absurdity lies before the men who thus speak; for they distinguish between the creatures and the framing; and consider the latter the work of the Father, the creatures the work of the Son; whereas either all things must be brought to be by the Father with the Son, or if all that is originate comes to be through the Son, we must not call Him one of the originated things.

– Athanasius, Discourse 2 Against the Arians, Sections 24 and 25

Another father wrote of the Arians:

The religious perspicuity of the ancient Scriptures caused them no shame, nor did the consentient doctrine of our colleagues concerning Christ keep in check their audacity against Him.

– Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle 1 (to Alexander of Constantinople), Section 10

And again:

4. Now concerning their blasphemous assertion who say that the Son does not perfectly know the Father, we need not wonder: for having once purposed in their mind to wage war against Christ, they impugn also these words of His, “As the Father knows Me, even so know I the Father.” [John 10:15] Wherefore, if the Father only in part knows the Son, then it is evident that the Son does not perfectly know the Father. But if it be wicked thus to speak, and if the Father perfectly knows the Son, it is plain that, even as the Father knows His own Word, so also the Word knows His own Father, of whom He is the Word.

5. By saying these things, and by unfolding the divine Scriptures, we have often refuted them. But they, chameleon-like, changing their sentiments, endeavour to claim for themselves that saying: “When the wicked comes, then comes contempt.” Proverbs 18:3 Before them, indeed, many heresies existed, which, having dared more than was right, have fallen into madness. But these by all their words have attempted to do away with the Godhead of Christ, have made those seem righteous, since they have come nearer to Antichrist. Wherefore they have been excommunicated and anathematized by the Church. And indeed, although we grieve at the destruction of these men, especially that after having once learned the doctrine of the Church, they have now gone back; yet we do not wonder at it; for this very thing Hymenaeus and Philetus suffered,[2 Timothy 2:17] and before them Judas, who, though he followed the Saviour, afterwards became a traitor and an apostate. Moreover, concerning these very men, warnings are not wanting to us, for the Lord foretold: “Take heed that you be not deceived: for many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and the tithe draws near: go not therefore after them.” [Luke 21:8] Paul, too, having learned these things from the Saviour, wrote, “In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils which turn away from the truth.” [1 Timothy 4:1]

– Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle 2 (General Epistle), Section 4

Of course Alexander was Athanasius’ predecessor in Alexandria, and one of the bishops at the Nicaean council – the one that brought Athanasius to that council. He was the bishop who was also the bishop over Arius (or would have been: Arius was a priest in Alexandria, and Alexander was the bishop – however Arius had been excommunicated by a predecessor bishop of Alexander). So perhaps, even though this should be the best evidence on the subject, I should mention some more remote bishop, such as Augustine:

Wherefore—to being now to answer the adversaries of our faith, respecting those things also, which are neither said as they are thought, nor thought as they really are:— among the many things which the Arians are wont to dispute against the Catholic faith, they seem chiefly to set forth this, as their most crafty device, namely, that whatsoever is said or understood of God, is said not according to accident, but according to substance, and therefore, to be unbegotten belongs to the Father according to substance, and to be begotten belongs to the Son according to substance; but to be unbegotten and to be begotten are different; therefore the substance of the Father and that of the Son are different. To whom we reply, If whatever is spoken of God is spoken according to substance, then that which is said, “I and the Father are one,” is spoken according to substance. Therefore there is one substance of the Father and the Son. Or if this is not said according to substance, then something is said of God not according to substance, and therefore we are no longer compelled to understand unbegotten and begotten according to substance. It is also said of the Son, “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” We ask, equal according to what? For if He is not said to be equal according to substance, then they admit that something may be said of God not according to substance. Let them admit, then, that unbegotten and begotten are not spoken according to substance. And if they do not admit this, on the ground that they will have all things to be spoken of God according to substance, then the Son is equal to the Father according to substance.

– Augustine, On the Trinity, Book 5, Chapter 3/Section 4

In fact, it is absurd to suggest that the Arian bishops and priests lacked apostolic succession in the sense of a chain of ordination back to the apostles. In fact, the primary sense in which they lacked apostolic succession was in the succession of doctrine: they did not follow the apostolic teachings handed down in Scripture.

But here’s a challenge to Mr. Cross: find even one Christian (non-Arian, if Roman Catholics are calling Arians Christians these days) from Arius’ birth until 100 years after Nicaea that says that the Arians “could affirm every single verse of Scripture” or couldn’t be refuted from Scripture alone. More positively, the challenge is to find some writer in that time period who appealed to apostolic succession, as such, to refute the Arians: who said that the orthodox clergy had apostolic succession but the Arian clergy did not. I think Mr. Cross will be hard pressed to meet such a challenge.

Ultimately, Mr. Cross’ claim is absurd. There is abundant refutation of Arianism in Scripture. While the theological terms we use serve a valuable purpose, we affirm the use of the term ὁμοούσιος because it is being used in a Scriptural sense (not in the prior Gnostic sense). We accept the Nicaean council because it agrees with the Word of God, not because its bishops were any more or less in a chain of ordination with the apostles than the bishops at the Arian councils. The Scriptures are our rule of faith, as was the case in the time of the early church.

Orth.— Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone.

Eran.— You shall receive no argument unconfirmed by Holy Scripture, and if you bring me any solution of the question deduced from Holy Scripture I will receive it, and will in no wise gainsay it.

– Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Dialogue 1


UPDATE: I neglected to link to the source for the quotation above (here’s the link). One of the folks commenting there demonstrated that the Arians are wrong from Scripture, and Bryan responded (among other things): “The Arians were able to affirm all the verses that you cite. In addition, Scripture itself does not specify which verses are the hermeneutical standard for interpreting other verses.” (link)

FURTHER UPDATE: (from David King)

Alexander of Alexandria (d. 328), the spiritual mentor of Athanasius, testified of the Arian heretics in a letter to Alexander of Constantinople: They are not ashamed to oppose the godly clearness of the ancient scriptures. NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, Chapter 3, or the translation of this phrase as the letter is preserved in ANF: Vol. VI, Epistle to Alexander, Bishop of the City of Constantinople, §10, “The religious perspicuity of the ancient Scriptures caused them no shame . . .” Greek text: Οὐ κατήδεσεν αὐτοὺς ἡ τῶν ἀρχαίων Γραφῶν φιλόθεος σαφήνεια . . . Theodoreti Ecclesiasticae Historiae, Liber I, Caput III, PG 82:904.

Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 200-265): “Even if I did not find this expression (i.e., ὁμοούσιον) in the Scriptures, yet collecting from the actual Scriptures their general sense, I knew that, being Son and Word, He could not be outside the Essence of the Father.” Athanasius quoting him in NPNF2: Vol. IV, De sententia Dionysii (Defence of Dionysius), §20. Greek text: Eἰ καὶ μὴ τὴν λέξιν ταύτην εὗρον ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς, ἀλλ’ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν γραφῶν τὸν νοῦν συναγαγών, ἔγνων ὅτι υἱὸς ὢν καὶ λόγος οὐ ξένος ἂν εἴη τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός. Cf. De sententia Dionysii, §20, PG 25:509.

Athanasius (297-373): But here too the Bishops, beholding their craftiness, collected from the Scriptures the figures of brightness, of the river and the well, and of the relation of the express Image to the Subsistence, and the texts, ‘in thy light shall we see light,’ and ‘I and the Father are one.’ And lastly they wrote more plainly, and concisely, that the Son was coessential with the Father; for all the above passages signify this. NPNF2: Vol. IV, Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa, §6. Greek text: Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνταῦθα οἱ ἐπίσκοποι, θεωρήσαντες ἐκείνων τὸ δόλιον συνήγαγον ἐκ τῶν γραφῶν τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τήν τε πηγὴν καὶ τὸν ποταμὸν καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα πρὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν καὶ τὸ »ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὀψόμεθα φῶς« καὶ τὸ »ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.« Καὶ λευκότερον λοιπὸν καὶ συντόμως ἔγραψαν ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ τὸν υἱόν· τὰ γὰρ προειρημένα πάντα ταύτην ἔχει τὴν σημασίαν. In Epistolam Ad Afros Episcopos Monitum, §6, PG 26:1040.

Phoebadius (d. @ 392): Knowing, therefore, this unity of substance in the Father and in the Son, on the authority, not only of the prophets, but also of the gospels, how canst thou say that the Homoüsion is not found in scripture? Latin text: Cum ergo hanc unitatem substantiae in Patre et Filio non solum prophetica, sed et evangelica auctoritate cognoscas; quomodo dicis in Scripturis divinis ὁμοιούσιον non inveniri? S. Phoebadius, De Fide Orthodoxa, Contra Arianos, Alias De Filii Divinitate et Consubstantialitate, Tractatus, Caput V, PL 20:41.

Augustine (354-430): In opposition also to the impiety of Arian heretics, they coined the new term, Patris Homousios; but there was nothing new signified by such a name; for what is called Homousios is just this: “I and my Father are one,” to wit, of one and the same substance. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 97, §4.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67): I do not know the word ὁμοιούσιον, or understand it, unless it confesses a similarity of essence. I call the God of heaven and earth to witness, that when I had heard neither word, my belief was always such that I should have interpreted ὁμοιούσιον by ὁμοούσιον. That is, I believed that nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same nature. Though long ago regenerate in baptism, and for some time a bishop, I never heard of the Nicene creed until I was going into exile, but the Gospels and Epistles suggested to me the meaning of ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον. Our desire is sacred. Let us not condemn the fathers, let us not encourage heretics, lest while we drive one heresy away, we nurture another. After the Council of Nicaea our fathers interpreted the due meaning of ὁμοούσιον with scrupulous care; the books are extant, the facts are fresh in men’s minds: if anything has to be added to the interpretation, let us consult together. Between us we can thoroughly establish the faith, so that what has been well settled need not be disturbed, and what has been misunderstood may be removed. NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Councils or the Faith of the Easterns, §91.

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): Even though the expression is not in the sacred scriptures—indeed, it is plainly implicit in the Law, the Apostles and the Prophets, for ‘By two or three witnesses shall every word be established’—all the same, it is permissible for us to employ a useful expression for piety’s sake, to safeguard the holy faith. Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), Against the Arian Nuts, 69.72,5 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 391.

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): It is plain that the term, “being,” does not appear in the Old and the New Testaments, but the sense of it is to be found everywhere. Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide), Against the Arian Nuts, 73.12,1 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 447.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329/330-389): Again, where do you get your Unbegotten and Unoriginate, those two citadels of your position, or we our Immortal? Show me these in so many words, or we shall either set them aside, or erase them as not contained in Scripture; and you are slain by your own principle, the names you rely on being overthrown, and therewith the wall of refuge in which you trusted. Is it not evident that they are due to passages which imply them, though the words do not actually occur? NPNF2: Vol. VII, Oration V, On the Holy Spirit, §22.

Athanasius (297-373): Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness!, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable. C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 1.19 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), p. 108. Greek text: Περιττῆς τοιγαροῦν καὶ πλέον μανίας οὔσης τῆς τοιαύτης ἐπιχειρήσεως, μηκέτι τοιαῦτά τις ἐρω τάτω, ἢ μόνον τὰ ἐν ταῖς Γραφαῖς μανθανέτω. Αὐτάρκη γὰρ καὶ ἱκανὰ τὰ ἐν ταύταις κείμενα περὶ τούτου παραδείγματα. Ad Serapionem 1.19, PG 26:573.

Augustine (354-430): In opposition also to the impiety of Arian heretics, they coined the new term, Patris Homousios; but there was nothing new signified by such a name; for what is called Homousios is just this: “I and my Father are one,” to wit, of one and the same substance. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 97, §4.

Augustine (354-430): What does “homoousios” mean, I ask, but The Father and I are one (Jn. 10:30)? I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witness for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason. See WSA, Answer to Maximinus, Part I, Vol. 18, ed. John Rotelle, O.S.A., trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 282.

John Calvin and the Fathers on Baptism

December 3, 2009

I’ve been told that John Calvin invented a justification for infant baptism that was new. I’m not fully persuaded that, in its essence, Calvin’s justification was new. My impression is that the main argument is that Calvin was departing from medieval Western tradition that viewed baptism essentially as regenerative by virtue of its operation. However, of course, I want to acknowledge up front that I haven’t seen a precisely worded expression of the claim that Calvin’s view of baptism was a theological novum. Perhaps, in the precisely worded expression of the claim, the point is that some of the details of Calvin’s justification for infant baptism were new. In any event, I hope the following post will help at least to demonstrate what wasn’t new to Calvin.

For example, Calvin writes:

Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham (cf. Gen. 17:14), is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and, therefore, that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished or curtailed the grace of the Father – an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed (Ezra 9:2; Isaiah 6:13), and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters (I Cor. 7:14). Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham ordered it to be sealed, infants by an outward sacrament (Gen. 17:12), how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children?

– John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 16, Section 6

Yet we see similar comments in the church fathers:

This sacrament the Lord Himself received in infancy, although He abrogated it when He was crucified. For these signs of spiritual blessings were not condemned, but gave place to others which were more suitable to the later dispensation. For as circumcision was abolished by the first coming of the Lord, so baptism shall be abolished by His second coming. For as now, since the liberty of faith has come, and the yoke of bondage has been removed, no Christian receives circumcision in the flesh; so then, when the just are reigning with the Lord, and the wicked have been condemned, no one shall be baptized, but the reality which both ordinances prefigure— namely, circumcision of the heart and cleansing of the conscience— shall be eternally abiding. If, therefore, I had been a Jew in the time of the former dispensation, and there had come to me a Samaritan who was willing to become a Jew, abandoning the error which the Lord Himself condemned when He said, “You worship ye know not what; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews;” [John 4:22] — if, I say, a Samaritan whom Samaritans had circumcised had expressed his willingness to become a Jew, there would have been no scope for the boldness which would have insisted on the repetition of the rite; and instead of this, we would have been compelled to approve of that which God had commanded, although it had been done by heretics. But if, in the flesh of a circumcised man, I could not find place for the repetition of the circumcision, because there is but one member which is circumcised, much less is place found in the one heart of man for the repetition of the baptism of Christ. You, therefore, who wish to baptize twice, must seek as subjects of such double baptism men who have double hearts.

– Augustine, Letter 23, Section 4

If the only meaning of baptism were the remission of sins, why would we baptize the newborn children who have not yet tasted of sin? But the mystery [of baptism] is not limited to this; it is a promise of greater and more perfect gifts. In it are the promises of future delights; it is a type of the future resurrection, a communion with the master’s passion, a participation in His resurrection, a mantle of salvation, a tunic of gladness, a garment of light, or, rather it is light itself.

– Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Compendium of Heretical Fables, Book 5, §18, Preface (courtesy of David King)

And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. Yet the apostle says of Abraham himself, that “he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith,” having already believed in his heart, so that “it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Why, therefore, was it commanded him that he should circumcise every male child in order on the eighth day, [Genesis 17:9-14] though it could not yet believe with the heart, that it should be counted unto it for righteousness, because the sacrament in itself was of great avail? And this was made manifest by the message of an angel in the case of Moses’ son; for when he was carried by his mother, being yet uncircumcised, it was required, by manifest present peril, that he should be circumcised, [Exodus 4:24-26] and when this was done, the danger of death was removed. As therefore in Abraham the justification of faith came first, and circumcision was added afterwards as the seal of faith; so in Cornelius the spiritual sanctification came first in the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament of regeneration was added afterwards in the laver of baptism. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of this righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew up, of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the outward body. And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves. But if another were to answer for one who could answer for himself, it would not be of the same avail. In accordance with which rule, we find in the gospel what strikes every one as natural when he reads it, “He is of age, he shall speak for himself.” John 9:21

– Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book 4, Chapter, Chapter 24 (Section 32)

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, “The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,” [Luke 4:56] as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker.

– Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 58, Section 2

Footnote to the Perspicuity Discussion – Liberius’ Lapse and Athanasius the non-Papist

November 3, 2009

Roman Catholic David Waltz has chimed in with his two cents on the exceedingly minor issue of whether or not Athanasius might have been mocking Liberius when he (Athanasius) mentioned “the eunuchs of Constantius” (link to Waltz’s piece). I had even stated in my original post, “But that’s an aside.” (link to my original post). I take the time to respond because Waltz’s post raises some further tangential issues that are worthy of note.

Waltz’s main point is probably correct, while his approach thoroughly disreputable. He titles his piece “TurretinFan thinks that Athanasius was mocking Liberius” despite the fact that my actual comment in the aside was merely “it is not unreasonable to think that Athanasius is actually using this passage to mock pope Liberius.” The fact that Waltz feels compelled to change my position to a stronger claim regarding Athanasius and Liberius, however, is only the tip of the iceberg.

Rather than beginning his article by addressing Athanasius and Liberius, Waltz immediately attempts to change the argument again to being about whether Athanasius accepted Sola Scriptura, something we’ve already demonstrated from Athanasius’ own writings even on those rare occasions when Waltz has attempted to venture out of the secondary sources (scholars who agree with the conclusion Waltz favors become for the moment “patristic scholars of the highest caliber”) into the primary sources (here’s an example of interaction over the primary material). You can read more from Athanasius himself here (first example)(second example).

Eventually, Waltz actually gets around to discussing the matter. On the whole, I think Waltz is correct in believing that the editor wished to suggest that the “confession of Peter” might be an allusion to Liberius, rather than suggesting that Liberius was one of Constantine’s eunuchs. The reason for thinking this is actually not the reasons that Waltz gives, but from the fact that at this point in the history of Liberius, Liberius had not yet Arianized. That came a few sections later (see Arian History, Part V, Section 41).

In view of this, I’ve updated my post.

However, Waltz’s argument itself is quite unconvincing. He refers the reader to section 36 of the history, which praises Liberius prior to Liberius’ lapse. The fact that Athanasius praises Liberius at one point doesn’t preclude him from mocking Liberius latter. What might change Athanasius’ attitude? the less-than-praiseworthy actions of Liberius.

In fact, Waltz doesn’t make reference to the important fact of Liberius’ lapse, something that would have seemed helpful to his case, had he been aware of it. The quotation we are addressing is in section 38, after the praise of Liberius in his first state, but before the actual lapse of Liberius in section 41: “But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed.” (Athanasius, Arian History, Part 5, Section 41)

Why doesn’t Waltz mention Liberius’ lapse? It’s hard to believe that Waltz is unaware of it, after studiously researching the context of the quotation provided. A more likely explanation is that Waltz is invested in a theory that Athanasius never opposed Liberius (see his prior comments here), and consequently Waltz does not want to acknowledge Athanasius’ opposition to Liberius. After all, in the present post Waltz states: “This appears to be yet another ill-conceived attempt to portray St. Athanasius as an opponent of Liberius … .”

What makes Waltz’s argument worse is that Waltz actually provides a quotation from Athanasius that proves that Athanasius was not a papist: that Athanasius was not someone who viewed the pope as the universal head of the church:

Now it had been better if from the first Constantius had never become connected with this heresy at all; or being connected with it, if he had not yielded so much to those impious men; or having yielded to them, if he had stood by them only thus far, so that judgment might come upon them all for these atrocities alone. But as it would seem, like madmen, having fixed themselves in the bonds of impiety, they are drawing down upon their own heads a more severe judgment. Thus from the first [FN: In contrast to date of his fall.] they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended [FN: τὴν μανίαν ἐξέτειναν; vid. ἐκτεῖναι τὴν μανίαν, §42. And so in the letter of the Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo; which says that Dioscorus, κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ τῆς ἀμπέλου τὴν φυλακὴν παρὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐπιτετραμμένου τὴν μανίαν ἐξέτεινε, λέγομεν δὴ τῆς σῆς ὁσιότητος. Hard. Conc. t. 2. p. 656. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. iv. §4.]] their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne; they felt no reverence for Rome, because she is the Metropolis of Romania [FN: By Romania is meant the Roman Empire, according to Montfaucon after Nannius. vid. Præfat. xxxiv. xxxv. And so Epiph. Hær, lxvi, 1 fin, p. 618, and lxviii. 2 init. p. 728, Nil. Ep. i. 75. vid. Du Cange Gloss. Græc. in voc.]; they remembered not that formerly in their letters they had spoken of her Bishops as Apostolical men.

– Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part 5, Section 35

What is the jurisdiction of the Roman bishop according to Athanasius? Is it the whole church? No, it is “Romania,” that is to say the Roman empire (not the country we call “Romania” today).

We see this same point again in Section 41 when discussing the lapse of Liberius: “Thus they endeavoured at the first to corrupt the Church of the Romans, wishing to introduce impiety into it as well as others.” (Athanasius, Arian History, Part 5, Section 41) Notice that forcing Liberius to sign the Arianizing creed was part of a corruption not of the universal church (according to Athanasius) but of the Roman church – one church to which there were others.

Incidentally, we see the same thing from Theodoret, who describes Leo as “the very sacred and holy bishop of the Church of the Romans, the lord Leo … .” (Theodoret, Letter 144)

So, while we thank Waltz for bringing some additional light to the matter of Liberius’ lapse and Athanasius’ opposition to that lapse, we have seen that the more deeply we dig into history the less papist we discover the fathers (in this case, Athanasius and Theodoret) to have been.

– TurretinFan

UPDATE (updated to correct attribution): While we are at it, we might as well point out Hilary of Poitiers’ reaction, described here by Henry Edward Manning the anonymous reviewer of Manning’s work:

The next weighty piece of evidence which the fourth century has to show is the fall of Pope Liberius in 357, when he not only signed (under severe pressure indeed, and as S. Jerome tells us, Chron. A.D. 357, through weariness of exile) the Arian creed of the third Council of Sirmium, but also anathematized S. Athanasius; an additional incident which destroys the plea sometimes adduced by Ultramontanes in mitigation, that the creed was patient of an orthodox interpretation, and was signed by Liberius in that sense only. It is curious to read the gentle, forgiving, and compassionate language in which S. Athanasius himself speaks of this fall, dwelling in preference on the Pope’s earlier confessorship (Ad Solitar.}, and then contrast it with the burning indignation of S. Hilary of Poitiers. After setting down the text of the letter addressed by Liberius to the Eastern prelates and clergy, wherein that Pope says that ‘it pleased God to let him know that Athanasius had been justly condemned, and that he had consequently expelled him from communion, and refused to receive his letters,’ S. Hilary, on reaching the place where Liberius speaks of the Sirmian creed as Catholic, interjects a note thus—[‘This is the Arian perfidy. This is my note, not the apostate’s. What follows is by Liberius.’] What does follow is the sentence: ‘This I have willingly received;’ whereon S. Hilary again interjects—[‘I say Anathema to thee, Liberius, and to thy accomplices.’] And after setting down a few words more of the letter, the Saint breaks out a third time—[‘Anathema to thee again, and yet a third time, renegade [praevaricator] Liberius’], using similar language yet a fourth time at the close of another letter of Liberius, which he has preserved for us—(S. Hilar. Oper. Hist. Frag, vi.)

(as provided in the Church Quarterly Review, Volume 9, pp. 510-11 (1880)

SECOND UPDATE: I see that Waltz has responded again, in similar style to the previous post (link to his response). There’s plenty of heat in post, but not much additional light. I think my comments above already adequately address the substance of his complaint. Waltz clarifies his own claims, and the readers are welcome to read his clarifications for themselves.

%d bloggers like this: